772

CYRILLUS

OYRILLUS

Theodore did,” and would rather be “ burnt ”than disown him; and he wrote to Proclus ad-vising that no further steps should be taken inthe matter {Ep. p. 199).

The remaining events of Cyril’s long episcopatemay be very briefly told. He wrote to Domnus,the successor of John in the see of Antioch (andafterwards unhappily conspicuous in the Euty-chian controversy), in behalfofAthanasius some-time bishop of Perrha, who described himself,falsely it appears, as sorely wronged by some ofhis own clergy {Ep. p. 208). In another letterto Domnus, peremptory in style, he took upthe cause of another aged bishop named Peter,who professed to have been expelled and plun-dered of his property on the pretext of a renun-ciation of his see, which after all had beenextorted from him {Ep. p. 209). In both thesecases Cyril shewed a somewhat impulsive readi-ness to believe the story of a petitioner, and asomewhat dictatorial temper in regard to theaffairs of another patriarchate. He was informed'ey some a'bbats of the Thebaid, when they paid avisit to Alexandria, that some bishops had givenscandal by ordaining men who had recently mar-ried, or who had for their insubordination beenexpelled from monasteries. On this subject hewrote to the bishop of Libya and Pentapolis {Ep,p. 211); compare the letter in which Isidoreurged him to inflict fitting punishment on theworthless priest Martinian of Pelusium, whohad gone to Alexandria with the professed expec-tation of bribing Cyril to give him a bishopric(Isid. Ep. ii. 127; Tillemont, xiv. 661). Hewrote a work against the Anthropomorphites,whose wild fancies about the Divine nature(as being limited and corporeal) had givensuch trouble in the days of his predecessor;and in a letter on this subject to Calosirius,bishop of Arsinoe, he added a caution against thefalse mysticism which insisted on prayer to theexclusion of all labour, and on the “senseless”opinion that the Eucharistic consecration lost itsefficacy if the sacrament was reserved until thefollowing day. “Christ’s holy Body,” wroteCyril, “ is not changed; hut the power of con-secration and the lifegiving grace still remain init ” {Op. vi. 365). In the last year of his fife hewrote to Leo, then bishop of Rome (to whom, asarchdeacon of Rome, he had written in 431against the ambitious schemes, as he regardedthem, of Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem (Leon. Ep.119, 4) on the right calculation of Easter forthe year 444, which according to the Alexandriancycle of 19 years he fixed for April 23. In thatsame year, on the 9th or the 27th of June, heclosed his eventful fife.

It must he needless to add that Cyril’s cha-racter is not to be estimated aright by ascribingany serious value to a coarse and ferocious in-vective against his memory, which was quotedas Theodoret’s in the fifth General Council(Theodor. Ep. 180; see Tillemont, xiv. 784). Ifit were indeed the production of the pen ofTheodoret, the reputation which would sufferfrom it would assuredly be his own. WhatCyril was, in his strength and in his weakness—inhis high-souled struggle for doctrines which wereto him, as they must be to all thoughtful be-lievers in Christ’s Divinity, the expressions ofessential Christian belief, or in the momentswhen his old faults of vehemence and impatience ,

reappeared in his conduct— we have alreadyseen. He started in public life, so to speak, withdangerous tendencies to vehemence and impe-riousness which were fostered by the bad tradi-tions of his uncle’s episcopate, and by the amplepowers of his see. It would he impossible tomaintain that these evils were wholly exhaustedby the grave errors which—exaggerations andfalse imputations set aside—distinguished his con-duct in the feud with the Jews and with Orestes:when, although guiltless of the blood of Hypatia,he must have felt that his previous violence hadbeen taken as an encouragement by her fanatical,murderers. The old impatience and absolutismwere all too prominent at certain points of theNestorian struggle; although on other occasions,as it must be admitted by all fair judges of hisconduct, influences of a softening and chasten-ing character had abated the turbid impetus of hiszeal, and had taught Cyril to be moderate andpatient. “ We may,” says Dr. Newman {HistSketches , iii. 342), “ hold St. Cyril a great ser-vant of God, without considering ourselvesobliged to defend certain passages of his eccle-siastical career.Cyril’s faults were not

inconsistent with great and heroic virtues, faith,firmness, intrepidity, fortitude, endurance, perse-verance.” Those who begin by condemning dog-matic zeal as a fierce and misplaced chivalry fora phantom, will find it most difficult to be justto a man like Cyril. But if his point of view,which was indeed the point of view taken bymany great religious heroes, and eminently byAthanasius, be understood and appreciated in itsfull force, as supplying the general motive forhis actions, it will not, at least it ought not, tobe difficult to do justice to his memory, evenwhere theological convictions like his are notprofessed or entertained. The issue raised byNestorianism was to Cyril a very plain one,which involved the very essence of ApostolicChristianity. Whatever ambiguities might beraised by a Nestorian use of the word Trp6<r<uTrov,it was clear to Cyril that the new theoryamounted to a denial of the Word Incarnate.And it was not a mere theory of the schools.Its promulgator held the great see of the Easterncapital, involving a central position and strongcourt influence; and he was in personal characterno amiable dreamer or scholastic pedant, whosefancies might die away if left to themselves. Hehas in modern times been spoken of as “ theblameless Nestorius ” : be was in bis own timesspoken of as “ the incendiary,” on account of azeal against other forms of heresy which im-pelled him to take strong measures againstopponents of his own. This was'the enemyagainst whom Cyril made up his mind to dobattle for the doctrine of a real Incarnation anda really Divine Christ. He had to reckon onopposition, not only from Nestorius himself, butfrom large numbers—a miscellaneous company,including civil functionaries as well as prelates—who accepted the Nestorian theology, or whothought that strong language against it wasuncalled for and offensive. He might have toencounter the displeasure of an absolute govern-ment : he certainly had for some time the pro-spect of that displeasure, and of all its conse-quences : he had the burden of ill-health, ofever-present intense anxiety, of roughly ex-pressed censure, of reiterated imputations affect*