CYRILLUS

CYRILLUS

773

ing his own orthodoxy, of misconceptions andsuspicions which hardly left him a moment’srest. Whatever faults may be discerned in hisconduct of the controversy, this at least not onlymay, but must be said—not by mere eulogistsof a canonised saint, but by those who care forthe truth of history—that the thought as wellas the heart of Christendom has for ages pro-nounced judgment in the cause between Cyriland Nestorius; and that this judgment hasaccepted, as the expression of Christian truth,the principle upheld by the former against thelatter. It has been seen that when the mist ofwords is cleared aside, a real and profound ques-tion divided the disputants; and (to take afamiliar instance) that stanza of Charles Wesley’sChristmas hymn which begins,

“ Christ, by highest heavens adored,”

conveys the Cyrilline or Ephesine answer to thatquestion in a form which exhibits its close con-nexion with the deepest exigencies of spirituallife. Cyril, as a theological writer, has greatermerits than have been sometimes allowed bywriters who find it difficult, as it would seem,to approach the subject of his life in a spiritof equity. His style, as Cave admits, maybe deficient in elegance and in eloquence:he may be often tedious, and sometimes ob-scure, although, as Photius says (Cod 136), his“Thesaurus” is remarkable for its lucidity. Hiscomments on Scripture may be charged withexcessive mysticism, or with a perpetual ten-dency to bring forward his favourite theologicalidea. There may be found weak points in hisargument; such, for instance, as undue pressingof texts, and fallacious inferences, several ofwhich might be cited from the treatise “To thePrincesses.” But any one who consults, e.g.the “ Thesaurus,” will acknowledge the abilitywith which Cyril follows up the theological lineof Athanasius (see pp. 12, 23, 27, 30, 50), andapplies the Athanasian mode of thought to thetreatment of Eunomian rationalism (p. 263), andthe force and vividness with which in thistreatise and in other works, he brings out theCatholic interpretation of cardinal texts in theNew Testament. His acquaintance with Greekliterature and philosophy is evident from thework against Julian: but he speaks quite in thetone of Hippolytus’s u Little Labyrinth ” (Euseb.v. 28) when he deprecates an undue reliance onAristotelian dialectics and a priori assumptionon mysteries transcending human thought( Ihesaur. 87, de recta fide 16, 17).

Fragments of Cyrilline treatises, which havenot been preserved entire are preserved in syno-dal acts and elsewhere, and other works, as his“Paschal Cycles” and “The Failure of theSynagogue,” are mentioned by Sigebert andGennadius. The Monophysites used on festivalsa “ Liturgy of St. Cyril,” which is substantiallyidentical with the Greek “ Liturgy of St. Mark ”(see Sir W. Palmer’s Orig. Liturg. i. 86, andNeale’s Introd. East. Gh. i. 324-) and their tradi-tionary belief, expressed in a passage cited fromAbu’lberkat by Renaudot, Lit. Orient, i. 171, isthat CyriL “ completed ” St. Mark’s Liturgy.“It seems highly probable,” says Dr. Neale,quoting this, “that the Liturgy of St. Markp am . e ’„ as we have ^ now > fr° m the hands of St.Cyril”; although, as Palmer says, tne orthodox

Alexandrians preferred to call it by the name ofthe Evangelist founder of their see. The CopticCyrilline Liturgy is of somewhat later date, andmore diffuse in character. It seems not impro-bable that the majestic invocation of the HolySpirit which is one of the distinctive ornamentsof St. Mark’s Liturgy, if it was not composedduring the Macedonian controversy in the 4thcentury, represents to us the lively zeal of thegreat upholder of the Hypostatic Union for theessential Divinity of the Third Person in theGodhead.

Cyril’s works have been thrice edited—(1) byGeorge of Trebizond, at Basle, a.d. 1546, in fourvolumes; (2) by Gentianus Hervetus at Paris,1573, 1605, in two volumes; and lastly (3) byJohn Aubert, canon of Laon, and master of LaonCollege in Paris, 1658, in six volumes, contain-ing—1. “ On Adoration in Spirit and Truth,” andthe “ Glaphyra,”.or polished comments on thePentateuch; 2. five books on Isaiah; 3. on theminor prophets; 4. on St. John’s Gospel; 5. part i.the “ Thesaurus ”: nine Dialogues on the Tri-nity, Incarnation, and that Christ is one and theLord; “ Scholia on the Incarnation; 5. part ii.the Paschal and other Homilies (the Greekbishops, according to Gennadius, de Vir. III. 57,used to recommend the Homilies to be learnt byheart), the 61 Epistles, the “De recta Fide,” the“ Ad Reginas ”; 6. five books against Nestorius:the explanation of the twelve articles; the de-fence of them, in reply to the Eastern bishops; asimilar reply to Theodoret; ten books againstJulian; a book against Anthropomorphites; atreatise on the Trinity, assigned, but withoutcertainty, to Cyril; and some specimens of“ anagogic ” interpretation of Scripture. Aubertdedicated his work in a curious letter to Cardi-nal Richelieu. His edition has not yet beensuperseded; there is no Benedictine St. Cyril.In 1859 Dr. Payne Smith, afterwards RegiusProfessor of Divinity at Oxford, and now Dean ofCanterbury, published in a complete form Cyril’sCommentary on St. Luke’s Gospel, translatedfrom a Syriac version; and in 1868 appeared thefirst two volumes of an elaborate edition by Ph.E. Pusey, M.A., of Christ Church, containing thecommentary on the Minor Prophets. Two othervolumes, containing eleven books of the Com-mentary on St. John, appeared in 1872. [W. B.]

CYRILLUS (8) deacon to St. Hilary of Arles,by whom he was wonderfully cured, after havinghad his foot bruised by the fall of a large stone.(Ceillier, Hist. G€n. des Auteurs sacrds, tom. viii.434, 435; Vita Hilarii Arelat. cap. xv., Patrol.Lai. 1.) [D. R. J.]

(9) Bishop of Adana in Cilicia Prima, one ofthe Oriental or Antiochene party at the councilof Ephesus (a.d. 431). He signed the remon-strance against the opening of the council byCyril of Alexandria, before the arrival ofJohn of Antioch and his companions (Baluz.Comil. col. 698), as well as the sentence of de-position passed by them on Cyril and his ad-herents (Labbe, Concil. tom. iii. col. 598). Hisname is appended to several of the documentsin the Tragoedia Irenaei , viz. to the letter tothe clergy and people of Hierapolis, and that tothe church of Constantinople, asserting thatJohn’s council was the legitimate one and thatCyril and his party were heretics (c. xiii. Baluz,