Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/673

 OTRIL

595

Comm. in Lucae evang. qus supersunt Syriace e MSS. apud Mus. Brit." (Oxford, 1858); the same translated into English (Oxford, 1859, 2 vols.); W. Wright, " Fragments of the Homilies of Cyril of Alex, on St. Luke, edited from a Nitrian MS." (London, 1874); J. H. Bernard, " On Some Fragments of an Uncial MS. of St. Cyril of Alex. Written on Papyrus" (Trans, of R. Irish Acad., XXIX, 18, Dublin, 1892); "Cvrilli Alex, librorum c. Julianum fragnienta syriaca, ed. E. Nestle etc. in " Seriptorum grseorum, qui Chris- tianam impugnaverunt religionera", fasc. Ill (Leipzig, 1880). Fragments of the "Liber Thesaurorum" in Pitra, "Analecta sacra et class.", I (Paris, 1888).

The best biography of St. Cyril is, perhaps, still that by TlL- LEMONT in Memoircs pour seryir, etc.. XIV. See also Kopaluk, CyrUliiS von Atexandrien (Mainz, 1881), an apology for St. Cyril's teaching and character. A moderate view is taken by Bright in Waymarks of Church History (London, 1894) and The Age of the Fathers (London, 1903), II. but he is recognized as prejudiced wherever the papacy is in question. Ehrharp. Die Cyrill v. Alex, zugesckriebene Schrift, nept t^s toi) K. ei-ai'^pajTr^creuj?, ein Werk des Thcodoret (Tiibingen, 1888); Loofs, Ncstoriana (Halle, 1905); Weigl, Die Heilslehre des Cyrill v. Alex. (Mainz, 1905). Of review articles may be mentioned: Largent. Etudes d'hist. eccl.: S. Cyrille d'Al. et le cone. d'Epht-se in Rev. des Quest. Hist. (1882), and Idem, Etudes d'hist. eccl., (Paris, 1892): Schafer, Die Christologie des Cyrii v. Al. in Theolog. Quartalschrift (Tubingen, 1895), 421; Make, Les ajinthcmatismes de S. Cyrille in Rev. d'hist. eccl. (Oct., 190G) ; Bethune-Baker, Neslorius and his Teaching (Cambridge, 1908): Mahe, L' Eucharislie d' apris S. Cyrille d' Al. in Rev. d' Hist. Eccl. (Oct., 1907); L. J. Sicking defends Cyril in the affair of Hypatia in Der Katholik, cxxix (1906), 44 and 127; on his accession, ibid.. CXXXII (1907), 31 and 121; Cony- BEARE, The Armenian Version of Revelation and Cyril of Alex- andria's scholia on the Incarnation edited from the oldest MSS. and Englished (London, 1907).

John Chapman.

Cjrril of Barcelona. See Sieni, Cyril.

Cyril o£ Constantinople, Saint, General of the Carmelites, d. about 12.35. All that is known is that he was prior of Mount Carmel, some say for twenty- seven, others, more correctly, for three years, and that he had the reputation of being a prophet. One of the pseudo-prophecies, given out towards the end of the thirteenth century by the Franciscan Spirituals, and attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, became known to Guido de Perpignan and other Carmelites at Paris, who ascribed it to their former general, now considered a saint and a doctor of the Church, his feast being introduced in 1399. In the Breviary les- sons he was also confounded with Cyril of Alexandria. When the mistake was discovered (1430, but the con- fusion was maintained in the Venice Breviary, 1542), his title of doctor was justified by attributing to him a work, of which no trace exists, on the procession of the Holy Ghost. The prophecy or angelic oracle " Divinura oraculum S. Cyrillo Carmelitee Constanti- nopolitano solemni legatione angeli missum" (ed. Philippus a SS. Trinitate, Lyons, 10G3), so called be- cause it is supposed to have been brought by an angel while Cyril was saying Mass, Ls a lengthy document of eleven chapters in incomprehensible language, with a commentary falsely ascribed to Abbot Joachim. It is first mentioned by Arnold of Villanova, e. 1295; Telesphoru-s of Cosenza applied it to the Western Schism and treated it as an utterance of the Holy Ghost. Another writing erroneously attributed to Cyril is "De processu ,sui Ordinis", by a contempo- rary, probably a French author ; edited by Daniel a Vir- gine Maria in "Speculiun Carmelitarum " (Antwerp, 1680), I, 75.

Ehrle, Ucber Cyrilts Oraculum angelicum in ArcJiiv f. Lilcratur u. Kirchengesch. d. M. A. (Berlin, 1886). II. 327; ZiuuEBHAN, Monumenta hislor. Carmd. (Ldrins, 1907). I, 295. B. Zimmerman.

C3rril of Jerusalem,SAmT, Bishop of Jerusalem and Doctor of the Church, !>. about 315; d. probably 18 March, 3S0. In the East his feast is ob.served on the _18th of March, in the West on the ISth or 20lh. Little is known of his life. We g:ith<T iiifiinii:ainn concern- ing him from his younger contemporaries, Epiphanius,

Jerome, and Rufinus, as well as from the fifth-century historians, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Cyril himself gives us the date of his "Catecheses" as fully seventy years after the Emperor Probus, that is about 347, if he is exact. Constans (d. 350) was then still alive. Mader thinks Cyril was already bishop, but it is usually held that he was at this date only a priest. St. Jerome relates (Chron. ad aiui. 3.52) that St. Cyril had been ordained priest by St. Maximus, his prede- cessor, after whose death the episcopate was promised to Cyril by the metropolitan, Acacius of Caesarea, and the other Arian bishops, on condition that he should repudiate the ordination he had received from Maxi- mus. He consented to minister as deacon only, and was rewarded for this impiety with the see. Maximus had consecrated Heraclius to succeed himself, but Cyril, by various frauds, degraded Heraclius to the priest- hood. So says St. Jerome ; but Socrates relates that Acacius drove out St. Maximus and substituted St. Cyril. A quarrel soon broke out between Cyril and Acacius, apparently on a question of precedence or jurisdiction. At Niciea the metropolitan rights of CtEsarea had been guarded, while a special dignity had been granted to Jerusalem. Yet St. Maximus had held a synod and had ordained bishops. This may have been as much the cause of Acacius' ermiity to him as his attachment to the Nicene formula. On the other hand, Cyril's correct Christology may have been the real though veiled ground of the hostility of Acacius to him. At all events, in 357 Acacius caused Cyril to be exiled on the charge of selling church furniture during a famine. Cyril took refuge with Silvanus, Bishop of Tarsus. He appeared at the Council of Seleucia in 359, in which the Semi-Arian party was triumphant. Acacius was deposed and St. Cyril seems to have returned to his see. But the emperor was displeased at the turn of events, and, in 300, Cyril and other moderates were again driven out, and only returned at the accession of Julian in 361. In 307 a decree of Valens banished all the bishops who had been restored by Julian, and Cyril remained in exile until the death of the persecutor in 378. In 380, St. Gregory of Nyssa came to Jerusalem on the recom- mendation of a council held at Antioch in the preced- ing year. He found the Faith in accord with the truth, but the city a prey to parties and corrupt in morals. St. CyrU attended the great Council of Con- stantinople in 381, at which Theodosius had ordered the Nicene faith, now a law of the empire, to be pro- mulgated. St. Cyril then formally accepted the homo- ousion; Socrates and Sozomen call this an act of repentance. Socrates gives 385 for St. Cyril's death, but St. Jerome tells us that St. Cyril lived eight years under Theodosius, that is, from January, 379.

Whitings. — The extant works of St. Cyril of Jeru- salem include a sermon on the Pool of Bethesda, a letter to the Emperor Constantius, three small frag- ments, and the famous "Catecheses". The letter describes a wonderful cross of light, extending from Calvary to the Momit of Olives, which appeared in the air on the nones of May, after Pentecost, towards the beginning of the saint's episcopate. The catechet- ical lectures are among the most precious remains of Christian antiiiuity. They include an introductory address, eighteen instructions delivered in Lent to those who were preparing for b:iptisTn, and five "mys- tagogical" instructions given during Easter week to the same persons after their l>;ii)tisni. They contain interesting local references as to tlu; finding of the Cross, the position of Calvary in relation to the walls, to other holy places, and to the great basilica built by Constantine in which these; conferences were delivered. They seem to have been spoken extempore, and writ^ ten down afterwards. The style is ailmirably clear, dignified, and logical; the tone is serious and full of piety. The subject is thus divided; 1. Hortatory. 2. On sin, and confidence in God's pardon. 3. On