760

CYBILLA

CYBILLUS

CYBILLA, nurse of St. Benedict, patriarchof the monks of the West. Shocked when aboy by the corruption of his fellow-students atHome, Benedict fled from school, and was fol-lowed unsuccessfully by his nurse. (Ann. Bened.cap. 1; Greg. Mag. Dialog., Patrol. Lai. lxvi. 127;Ceillier, xi. 156.) [W. M. S.]

CYBILLUS (1) bishop of Antioch, who suc-ceeded Timaeus a.d. 283, and held the see for 20years, to A.D. 304, when he was succeeded by Ty-rannus. Eusebius speaks of him as his contem-porary. During his episcopate Dorotheus attainedcelebrity as an expounder of scripture (Euseb. II.E. lib. vii. c. 32; Chronicon ad ann. 4 Probi).According to an obscure tradition he sufferedmartyrdom at the commencement of Diocletian’spersecution, and is commemorated in the RomanMartyrology July 22. [E. V.]

CYBILLUS (2), KbpiWos, bishop of Jeru-salem, was probably boru in Jerusalem or itsimmediate neighbourhood, c. 315. We have noinformation as to the school in which hewas brought up, but his writings prove thathis education was liberal, and embraced a largevariety of subjects. Touttee has laboriouslycollected evidences (c. ii.) of his acquaintancewith physics, dialectics, physiology, mythology,&c. That he was a diligent student of HolyScripture is certain, from the intimate know-ledge, at least of the text, shewn in hisOatecheses. But he was only acquainted withthe LXX. His knowledge of Hebrew, we seefrom his attempts to interpret proper names(e.g. Samuel, Introd. Lect. 14; Bosor, xiii. 27;Judas, ib. 9, &c.), was only second-hand, and oftenincorrect. His commendation of the virtues of amonastic life (e.g. iv. 24, xii. 25-33, xv. 23) havebeen strained into a proof of his having at onetime embraced it. Of this there is no evidence.Cyril had a sister who was the mother ofGelasius, bishop of Csesarea. He was or-dained deacon probably by Macarius, c. 335 (Soz.H. E. iv. 20, where the text is doubtful), andpriest by his successor Maximus, c. 345. Maxi-mus, notwithstanding Cyril's youth, entrustedhim with the responsible duty of instructing thecatechumens, and preparing them for baptism.He also allowed him the exceptional privilege,sometimes granted by bishops to presbyters ofeminent ability (e.g. to Chrysostom by Flavian ofAntioch, and to Augustine by Valerius of Hippo),of preaching to the people in full church on theLord’s Day. In his office of catechist, c. 347, hedelivered the catechetical lectures by which hisname is chiefly known. (Hieron. de Vir. lUust.

§ 12.) These lectures were preached withoutbook on the evenings of the weeks of Lent, intlie basilica of the Holy Cross, or Martyrium ,erected on Calvary by St. Helena. His refer-ences to the locality are numerous and inter-esting (e.g. iv. 10-14, x. 19, xiii. 4, 22, 39, xviii.33). The five mystagogical lectures were ad-dressed during Easter-week at noon to those whohad been baptized on Easter-eve in the Anastasis,or church of the Holy Sepulchre.

The episcopate of Maximus terminated at theclose of 350 or the beginning of 351, and Cyrilwas chosen to fill the episcopal chair of Jerusa- !lem. A cloud of doubt and difficulty hangs over 'his elevation to the episcopate, which at thisdistance of time it is hopeless to dispel. The

almost contemporary authority of Jerome, sup-ported by Rufinus, demands chief attention.He can hardly have been mistaken as to the mainfact, though a theological prejudice and personaldislike may have warped his judgment and causedhim to represent the case in the least favourablelight. On some leading questions Cyril andJerome were decidedly opposed to one another.In the great controversy of the day Cyril be-longed to the Asiatic party, Jerome to that oiRome. In the Meletian schism also they took op-posite sides; Cyril supporting Meletius, Jeromebeing a warm adherent of Paulinus. An atmo-sphere of fierce controversy is always most un-favourable to the habit of calm investigation andfaithful statement. What wonder, therefore, ifthen as now the worst was only too readilybelieved, and too rashly published of a zealousadherent of the opposite party ? Jeromeasserts (Chronicon ad ann. 349) that on the deathof Maximus the Arians invaded the church ofJerusalem and promised to appoint Cyril to thevacant throne if he would repudiate his ordina-tion by Maximus; that Cyril consented to thehumiliating terms, served some time in thechurch as a deacon, and was then rewarded withthe episcopate by Acacius, the semi-Arian bishopof Caesarea, and according to the seventh Nicenecanon, Metropolitan of Palestine; that hethen dishonourably persecuted Heraclius, whomMaximus, on his death-bed, had nominated hissuccessor, and degraded him to the presbyterate.This account is supported by Rufinus (H. E. i. 23,“ Sacerdotio, confusa jam ordinatione, suscepto”),and it is hardly possible to reject it altogether.Socrates and Sozomen, though they say nothingof Cyril’s repudiation of his orders, are almostequally unfavourable to his orthodoxy, identi-fying him with the semi-Arian party of Acaciusand Patrophilus. They also introduce a new ele-ment of confusion by the statement that the seeof Jerusalem was vacant not by death, but byMaximus’s deposition and expulsion by the semi-Arians (Socr. ii. 38; Soz. iv. 20; Theophan.Chronograph, p. 34). This may safely be rejected.In refutation of Jerome’s account, Cyril’s ad-vocates triumphantly point to the synodical letterto pope Damasus of the bishops assembled at Con-stantinople, the year after the second OecumenicalSynod, a.d., 382 (Theodt. II. E. v. 9), whichspeaks of Cyril in terms of high eulogy, as achampion of the orthodox faith against Arianheresy, rbv albe(nfX(aro.rov tted deotyikiararov

KvpiWov . -rrXeiara irpbs robs ’A ptiavovs

iv diacpdpois rdirots aBx^aavra, and affirms hiscanonical election to the bishopric of Jerusalem,KavoviK&s Trapa rcov ttjs l7rapx* as X €t P OTOV ^ €VTairakai. (Theodt. II. E. v. 9.) But this doesnot touch the point at issue. Acacius was, aswe have said, the metropolitan of Cyril’s pro-vince. He and his fallow bishops were, notwith-standing their heretical bias, the legitimate au-thorities for conferring the episcopate. Cyril’selection and consecration by them was thereforestrictly canonical. Besides, the silence of themembers of the synod as to facts occurring thirtyyears before does not disprove them. Whatevermight have been Cyril’s earlier heretical failings,he was on the orthodox side then. (Cf. Socr. v. 8,KvpiWos T 6re €K fJ.€TCtp.€\(aS T<p 6p.OOV(fi<p ^pO<T“Kfifievos, and Soz. vii. 7.) His adhesion was va-luable, and it would have been as impolitic «« it