ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM - CLICK LINK OR PICTURE
Rev. Alban Butler (1711–73). Volume III: March.
The Lives of the Saints. 1866.
March 18
St. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, Confessor
From the church historians, and his works
collected by Dom Touttée in his excellent edition of them at Paris, in 1720.
A.D. 386.
CYRIL was born at, or
near the city of Jerusalem,
about the year 315. So perfectly was he versed in the holy scriptures, that
many of his discourses, and some of these pronounced extempore, are only
passages of the sacred writings connected and interwoven with each other. He
had read diligently both the fathers and the pagan philosophers. Maximus,
bishop of Jerusalem, ordained him priest about the year 345, and soon after
appointed him his preacher to the people, likewise his catechist to instruct
and prepare the catechumens for baptism; thus committing to his care the two
principal functions of his own pastoral charge. St. Cyril mentions his sermons
to the faithful every Sunday. 1 Catechumens ordinarily remained two years in
the course of instruction and prayer, and were not admitted to baptism till
they had given proof of their morals and conduct, as well as of their constancy
in the faith. 2 This office St. Cyril performed for several years; but we have
only the course of his catechetical sermons for the year 348, or 347. Perhaps,
the others were never committed to writing. He succeeded Maximus in the see of Jerusalem about the end
of the year 350.
The beginning of his episcopacy was
remarkable for a prodigy by which God was pleased to honour the instrument of
our redemption. It is related by Socrates, 3 Philostorgius, 4 the chronicle of
Alexandria, &c. St. Cyril, an eye-witness, wrote immediately to the emperor
Constantius, an exact account of this miraculous phenomenon: and his letter is
quoted as a voucher for it by Sozomen, 5 Theophanes, 6 Eutychius, 7 John of
Nice, 8 Glycas, and others. Dr. Cave has inserted it at length in his life of
St. Cyril. 9 The relation he there gives of the miracle is as follows: “On the
nones (or 7th) of May, about the third hour (or nine in the morning) a vast
luminous body, in the form of a cross, appeared in the heavens, just over the
holy Golgotha, reaching as far as the holy mount of Olivet, (that is, almost
two English miles in length,) seen not by one or two persons, but clearly and
evidently by the whole city. This was not, as maybe thought, a momentary
transient phenomenon: for it continued several hours together visible to our
eyes, and brighter than the sun; the light of which would have eclipsed it, had
not this been stronger. The whole city, struck with a reverential fear,
tempered with joy, ran immediately to the church, young and old, Christians and
heathens, citizens and strangers, all with one voice giving praise to our Lord
Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, the worker of miracles; finding by
experience the truth of the Christian doctrine, to which the heavens bear
witness.” He concludes his letter with wishes that the emperor may always
glorify the holy and consubstantial Trinity. 10 Philostorgius and the
Alexandrian chronicle affirm, that this cross of light was encircled with a
large rainbow. 11 The Greek church commemorates this miracle on the 7th of May.
Some time after this memorable event,
a difference happened between our saint and Acacius, archbishop of Cæsarea,
first a warm Semi-Arian, afterwards a thorough Arian. It began on the subject
of metropolitical jurisdiction, which Acacius unjustly claimed over the church of Jerusalem; and what widened the breach
between them was their difference of sentiments with regard to the
consubstantiality of the Son, which St. Cyril had always most zealously
asserted. 12 This was sufficient to render him odious in the eyes of Acacius,
who in a council of Arian bishops, convened by him, declared St. Cyril deposed
for not appearing, after two years warning, to answer to the crimes alleged
against him. One of them was, that he had lavished away the goods of the
Church, and had applied its sacred ornaments to profane uses. The ground of the
accusation was, that, in time of a great famine at Jerusalem, he had sold some of the Church
plate, and precious stuffs to relieve the wants of the poor. St. Cyril, not
looking upon the members of the council as qualified judges, appealed to higher
powers, 13 but yielding to violence withdrew to Antioch,
and thence removed to Tarsus,
where he was honourably entertained by the bishop Sylvanus, and had in great
respect, notwithstanding the sentence of Acacius and his council against him.
Here living in communion with Sylvanus, Eustathius of Sebaste, Basil of Ancyra,
and others, who soon appeared at the head of the Semi-Arian faction, this gave
rise to the calumny that St. Cyril himself had espoused it. But nothing could
be more falsely alleged against him, he having always maintained the Catholic
faith. He had accordingly, in 349, together with his predecessor Maximus,
received the decrees of the council of Sardica, and consequently those of Nice.
And we have already seen, in his letter to Constantius, that he made an
undaunted profession of the Consubstantial Trinity. To which we may add, that
in the council of Constantinople, in 381, he
joined with the other bishops in condemning the Semi-Arians and Macedonians.
And the orthodox bishops assembled in the same city, in 382, writing to Pope
Damasus and to the western bishops, gave a most ample testimony to his faith,
declaring, “That the most reverend and beloved of God, Cyril, bishop of
Jerusalem, had been canonically elected by the bishops of the province, and had
suffered many persecutions for the faith.” 14 Upon the death of Constantius, in
361, Julian the apostate, partly out of aversion to his uncle, and partly in
hopes to see the Christian sects and the orthodox more at variance, suffered
all the banished bishops to return to their churches. Thus did God make use of
the malice of his enemy to restore St. Cyril to his see. He shortly after made
him an eye-witness to the miraculous manifestation of his power, by which he
covered his blaspheming enemies with confusion. The following most authentic
history of that remarkable event is gathered from the original records, and
vindicated against the exceptions of certain sceptics by Tillemont, 15 and by
our most learned Mr. Warburton in his Julian.
In vain had the most furious tyrants exerted
the utmost cruelty, and bent the whole power which the empire of the world put
into their hands to extirpate, if it had been possible, the Christian name. The
faith increased under axes, and the blood of martyrs was a fruitful seed, which
multiplied the Church over all nations. The experience of how weak and
ineffectual a means brute force was to this purpose, moved the emperor Julian,
the most implacable, the most crafty, and the most dangerous instrument which
the devil ever employed in that design, to shift his ground, and change his
artillery and manner of assault. He affected a show of great moderation, and in
words disclaimed open persecution; but he sought by every foul and indirect
means to undermine the faith, and sap the foundations of the Christian
religion. For this purpose he had recourse to every base art of falsehood and
dissimulation, in which he was the most complete master. He had played off the
round of his machines to no purpose, and seemed reduced to this last expedient
of the pacific kind, the discrediting the Christian religion by bringing the
scandal of imposture upon its divine author. This he attempted to do by a
project of rebuilding the Jewish temple, which, if he could have compassed, it
would have sufficiently answered his wicked design; Christ and the prophet
Daniel having in express terms foretold not only its destruction, which was
effected by the Romans under Titus, but its final ruin and desolation.
The Jewish religion was a temporary
dispensation, intended by its divine author, God himself, to prefigure one more
complete and perfect, and prepare men to embrace it. It not only essentially
required bloody sacrifices, but enjoined a fixed and certain place for them to
be performed in; this was the temple at Jerusalem.
Hence, the final destruction of this temple was the abolition of the
sacrifices, and annihilated the whole system of this religious institution.
Whence St. Chrysostom 16 shows that the destruction of Jerusalem is to be ascribed, not to the power
of the Romans, for God had often delivered it from no less dangers; but to a
special providence, which was pleased to put it out of the power of human
perversity to delay or respite the extinction of those ceremonial observances.
“As a physician,” says that father, “by breaking the cup, prevents his patient
from indulging his appetite in a noxious draught; so God withheld the Jews from
their sacrifices by destroying the whole city itself, and making the place
inaccessible to all of them.” St. Gregory Nazianzen, Socrates, Theodoret, and
other Christian writers, are unanimous in what they say of Julian’s motive,
ascribing to him the intention already mentioned, of falsifying the scripture
prophecies, those of Daniel and Christ, which his actions sufficiently evidence.
His historian, indeed, says, that he undertook this work out of a desire of
rendering the glory of his reign immortal by so great an achievement: 17 but
this was only an after-thought or secondary motive; and Sozomen in particular
assures us that not only Julian, but that the idolators who assisted in it,
pushed it forward upon that very motive, and for the sake thereof suspended
their aversion to the Jewish nation. Julian himself wrote a letter to the body
or community of the Jews, extant among his works, 18 mentioned by Sozomen, 19
and translated by Dr. Cave, in his life of St. Cyril. In it he declares them
free from all exactions and taxes, and orders Julus or Illus, (probably
Hillel,) their most reverend patriarch, to abolish the apostoli, or gatherers
of the said taxes; begs their prayers, (such was his hypocrisy,) and promises,
after his Persian expedition, when their temple should be rebuilt, to make
Jerusalem his residence, and to offer up his joint prayers together with
them.
After this he assembled the chief
among the Jews, and asked them why they offered no bloody sacrifices, since
they were prescribed by their law? They replied, that they could not offer any
but in the temple, which then lay in ruins. Whereupon he commanded them to repair
to Jerusalem,
rebuild their temple, and re-establish their ancient worship, promising them
his concurrence towards carrying on the work. The Jews received the warrant
with inexpressible joy, and were so elated with it, that, flocking from all
parts to Jerusalem, they began insolently to scorn and triumph over the
Christians, threatening to make them feel as fatal effects of their severity,
as they themselves had heretofore from the Roman powers. 20 The news was no
sooner spread abroad than contributions came in from all hands. The Jewish
women stript themselves of their most costly ornaments, to contribute towards
the expense of the building. The emperor also, who was no less impatient to see
it finished, in order to encourage them in the undertaking, told them he had
found in their mysterious sacred books, that this was the time in which they
were to return to their country, and that their temple and legal observances
were to be restored. 21 He gave orders to his treasurers to furnish money and
everything necessary for the building, which would require immense sums: he
drew together the most able workmen from all quarters, and appointed for
overseers persons of the highest rank, placing at their head his intimate
friend Alypius, who had formerly been Pro-prefect of Britain; charging him to
make them labour in this great work without ceasing, and to spare no expense.
All things were in readiness, workmen were assembled from all quarters; stone,
brick, timber, and other materials, in immense quantities, were laid in. The
Jews of both sexes and of all degrees bore a share in the labour; the very
women helping to dig the ground, and carry out the rubbish in their aprons and
skirts of their gowns. It is even said that the Jews appointed some pickaxes,
spades, and baskets to be made of silver for the honour of the work. But the
good bishop St. Cyril, lately returned from exile, beheld all these mighty
preparations without any concern, relying on the infallible truth of the
Scripture prophecies: as, that the desolation of the Jewish temple should last
till the end; 22 and that one stone should not be left on another; 23 and being
full of the spirit of God, he foretold with the greatest confidence, that the
Jews, so far from being able to rebuild their ruined temple, would be the
instruments whereby that prophecy of Christ would be still more fully
accomplished than it had been hitherto, and that they would not be able to put
one stone upon another, 24 and the event justified the prediction.
Till then the foundations and some
ruins of the walls of the temple subsisted, as appears from St. Cyril: 25 and
Eusebius says, 26 the inhabitants still carried away the stones for their
private buildings. These ruins the Jews first demolished with their own hands,
thus concurring to the accomplishment of our Saviour’s prediction. Then they
began to dig the new foundation, in which work many thousands were employed.
But what they had thrown up in the day was, by repeated earthquakes, the night
following cast back again into the trench. “And when Alypius the next day
earnestly pressed on the work, with the assistance of the governor of the
province, there issued,” says Ammianus, “such horrible balls of fire out of the
earth near the foundations, 27 which rendered the place, from time to time,
inaccessible to the scorched and blasted workmen. And the victorious element
continuing in this manner obstinately and resolutely bent as it were to drive
them to a distance, Alypius thought proper to give over the enterprise.” 28
This is also recorded by the Christian authors, who, besides the earthquakes
and fiery eruption, mention storms, tempests, and whirlwinds, lightning,
crosses impressed on the bodies and garments of the assistants, and a flaming
cross in the heavens, surrounded with a luminous circle. The order whereof
seems to have been as follows: this judgment of the Almighty was ushered in by
storms and whirlwinds, by which prodigious heaps of lime and sand, and other
loose materials were carried away.” 29 After these followed lightning, the
usual consequence of collision of clouds in tempests. Its effects were, first
the destroying the more solid materials, and melting down the iron instruments;
30 and secondly, the impressing shining crosses on the bodies and garments of
the assistants without distinction, in which there was something that in art
and elegance exceeded all painting or embroidery; which when the infidels
perceived, they endeavoured, but in vain, to wash them out. 31 In the third
place came the earthquake, which cast out the stones of the old foundations,
and shook the earth into the trench or cavity dug for the new; besides
overthrowing the adjoining buildings and porticos wherein were lodged great
numbers of Jews designed for the work, who were all either crushed to death, or
at least maimed or wounded. The number of the killed or hurt was increased by
the fiery eruption in the fourth place, attended both with storms and tempest
above, and with an earthquake below. 32 From this eruption, many fled to a
neighbouring church for shelter, but could not obtain entrance; whether on
account of its being closed by a secret invisible hand, as the fathers state
the case, or at least by a special providence, through the entrance into the
oratory being choked up by a frighted crowd, all pressing to be foremost.
“This, however,” says St. Gregory Nazianzen, 33 “is invariably affirmed and
believed by all, that as they strove to force their way in by violence, the
Fire, which burst from the foundations of the temple, met and stopt them, and
one part it burnt and destroyed, and another it desperately maimed, leaving
them a living monument of God’s commination and wrath against sinners.” This
eruption was frequently renewed till it overcame the rashness of the most
obdurate, to use the words of Socrates; for it continued to be repeated as
often as the projectors ventured to renew their attempt, till it had fairly
tired them out. Lastly, on the same evening there appeared over Jerusalem a lucid cross, shining very bright, as large as
that in the reign of Constantine,
encompassed with a circle of light. “And what could be so proper to close this
tremendous scene, or to celebrate this decisive victory, as the Cross
triumphant, encircled with the Heroic symbol of conquest?”
This miraculous event, with all its
circumstances, is related by the writers of that age; by St. Gregory Nazianzen
in the year immediately following it; by St. Chrysostom, in several parts of
his works, who says that it happened not twenty years before, appeals to eye-witnesses
still living and young, and to the present condition of those foundations, “of
which,” says he, “we are all witnesses;” by St. Ambrose in his fortieth
epistle, written in 388; Rufinus, who had long lived upon the spot; Theodoret,
who lived in the neighbourhood in Syria; Philostorgius, the Arian; Sozomen, who
says many were alive when he wrote who had it from eye-witnesses, and mentions
the visible marks still subsisting; Socrates, &c. The testimony of the
heathens corroborate this evidence; as that of Ammianus Marcellinus above
quoted, a nobleman of the first rank, who then lived in the court of Julian at
Antioch and in an office of distinction, and who probably wrote his account
from the letter of Alypius to his master at the time when the miracle happened.
Libanus, another pagan friend and admirer of Julian, both in the history of his
own life, and in his funeral oration on Julian’s death, mentions these
earthquakes in Palestine,
but with a shyness which discovers the disgrace of his hero and superstition.
Julian himself speaks of this event in the same covert manner. Socrates
testifies, that, at the sight of the miracles, the Jews at first cried out that
Christ is God; yet returned home as hardened as ever. St. Gregory Nazianzen,
says, that many Gentiles were converted upon it, and went over to the Church.
Theodoret and Sozomen say many were converted; but as to the Jews, they
evidently mean a sudden flash of conviction, not a real and lasting conversion.
The incredulous blinded themselves by various pretences: but the evidence of
the miracle leaves no room for the least cavil or suspicion. The Christian
writers of that age are unanimous in relating it with its complicated
circumstances, yet with a diversity which shows their agreement, though perfect,
could not have been concerted. The same is confirmed by the testimony of the
most obstinate adversaries. They, who, when the temple of Daphne
was consumed about the same time, by lightning, pretended that it was set on
fire by Christians, were not able to suspect any possibility of contrivance in
this case: nor could the event have been natural. Every such suspicion is
removed by the conformity of the event with the prophecies: the importance of
the occasion, the extreme eagerness of Jews and Gentiles in the enterprise, the
attention of the whole empire fixed on it, and the circumstances of the fact.
The eruption, contrary to its usual nature, was confined to one small spot; it
obstinately broke out by fits, and ceased with the project, and this in such a
manner, that Ammianus himself ascribes it to an intelligent cause. The
phenomena of the cross in the air, and on the garments, were admirably fitted,
as moral emblems, to proclaim the triumph of Christ over Julian, who had taken
the cross out of the military ensigns, which Constantine had put there to be a lasting
memorial of that cross which he had seen in the air that presaged his
victories. The same was again erected in the heavens to confound the vanity of
its impotent persecutor. The earthquake was undoubtedly miraculous; and though
its effects were mostly such as might naturally follow, they were directed by a
special supernatural providence, as the burning of Sodom by fire from heaven. Whence Mr.
Warburton concludes his dissertation on this subject with the following
corrolary. “New light continually springing up from each circumstance as it
passes in review, by such time as the whole event is considered, this
illustrious miracle comes out in one full blaze of evidence.” 34 Even Jewish
Rabbins, who do not copy from Christian writers, relate this event in the same
manner with the fathers from their own traditions and records. 35 This great
event happened in the beginning of the year 363. St. Chrysostom admires the
wonderful conduct of divine providence in this prodigy, and observes, that had
not the Jews set about to rebuild their temple, they might have pretended they
could have done it; therefore did God permit them thrice to attempt it, once
under Adrian, when they brought a greater desolation upon themselves; a second
time under Constantine the Great, who dispersed them, cut off their ears, and
branded their bodies with the marks of rebellion. He then relates this third
attempt, “in our own time,” as he says, “not above twenty years ago, in which God
himself visibly baffled their endeavours, to show that no human power could
reverse his decree; and this at a time when our religion was oppressed, lay
under the axes, and had not the liberty even to speak; that impudence itself
might not have the least shadow of pretence.”
St. Cyril adored the divine power in
this miracle, of which he had occular demonstration. Orosius says that Julian
had destined him to slaughter after his Persian expedition, but the death of
the tyrant prevented his martyrdom. He was again driven from his see by the
Arian emperor, Valens, in 367, but recovered it in 378, when Gratian, mounting
the throne, commanded the churches to be restored to those who were in
communion with Pope Damasus. He found his flock miserably divided by heresies
and schisms under the late wolves to whom they had fallen a prey: but he
continued his labours and tears among them. In 381 he assisted at the general
council of Constantinople, in which he
condemned the Semi-Arians and Macedonians, whose heresy he had always opposed,
though he had sometimes joined their prelates against the Arians before their
separation from the Church, as we have seen above; and as St. Hilary, St.
Meletius, and many others had done. He had governed his church eight years in peace
from the death of Valens, when, in 386, he passed to a glorious immortality, in
the seventieth year of his age. He is honoured by the Greeks and Latins on this
day, which was that of his death.
Note 1. Cat. 5. 10. 14.
Note 2. See Fleury Mœurs des Chrétiens, p.
42.
Note 3. B. 2. c. 28.
Note 4. Ib. 3. c. 26.
Note 5. Ib. 5. c. 5.
Note 6. Ad. an. 353.
Note 7. Annal. p. 475.
Note 8. Auctar. Combefis. t. 2. p. 382.
Note 9. T. 2. p. 344.
Note 10. [Greek]. This is an argument of his
firm adherence to the Nicene faith, and that by the praises which he bestows on
an Arian emperor in this piece, he meant not to flatter him in his heterodox
sentiments; they being only compliments of course in an address to an eastern
emperor, and his own sovereign.
Note 11. Certain moderns imagine that the
luminous crosses which appeared in the air in the reigns of Constantine and
Constantius, were merely natural solar halos; and that under Julian, which
appeared in the night, a lunar halo, or circle of colours, usually red, round
those celestial bodies. But in opposition to this hypothesis we must observe,
that those natural phenomena do not ordinarily appear in the figure of a cross,
but of a ring or circle, as both experience and the natural cause show. We
ought also to take notice, that this prodigy appeared thrice in the same
century, and always on extraordinary occasions, in which many circumstances
rendered a miraculous manifestation of the divine power highly credible.
Moreover, how will these secretaries and confidents of the intrigues of nature,
as Mr. Warburton styles them, account for the inscription, In this conquer,
which was formed in bright letters round the cross, which appeared in the air
to Constantine and his whole army, as that emperor himself affirmed upon oath,
and as Eusebius assures us from his testimony, and that of other eye-witnesses.
(l. 1. de Vit. Const. c. 28. olim 22.) Fabricius very absurdly pretends that
[Greek] may here signify an emblem, not an inscription. Mr. Jortin, after
taking much pains on this subject, is obliged to confess (vol. 3. p. 6) that,
“After all, it seems more natural to interpret [Greek] of a writing than of a
picture. “It is an ugly circumstance,” says this author, “and I wish we could
fairly get rid of it.” Those who can explain the scripture account of the
passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea
by a natural strong wind, and an extraordinary ebbing of the waters, can find
no knot too hard for them. To deny a supernatural interposition they can
swallow contradictions, and build hypothesis far more wonderful than the
greatest miracles.
Note 12. Sozomen indeed says, (b. 4. c. 24.)
that Acacius fought for Arianism, Cyril for Semi-Arianism: but this is
altogether a mistake. For Acacius himself was at that time a Semi-Arian, and in
341, in the council of Antioch,
affirmed Christ to be like, though not equal, to his Father. It was only in
358, that he closed in with Eudoxius, and the other rigid Arians. And as to St.
Cyril, it is also clear from the facts above mentioned, and from his writings,
that he always professed the Catholic faith, with regard to the article of the
Consubstantiality of the Son of God. This is demonstrated by Dom Touttée, in his
life of St. Cyril, and by his colleague Dom Maran, in his dissertation on the
Semi-Arians, printed at Paris,
in 1721, to vindicate this father against a certain author in the memoirs of
Trevoux, an. 1721.
Note 13. Sozom. b. 4. c. 24.
Note 14. Apud Theod. Hist. b. 5. c. 9.
Note 15. Tillem. t. 7. p. 400.
Note 16. Hom. 6. adv. Judæ. t. 1. p. 646.
ed. Ben.
Note 17. Amm. Marcell. l. 3. c. 1.
Note 18. Ep. 25. p. 152.
Note 19. Soz. l. 5. c. 22.
Note 20. It was about this time that the
Jews demolished the great church of Alexandria, two more at Damascus, and others elsewhere.
Note 21. Naz. Or. 4. adv. Julian.
Note 22. Dan. ix. 27.
Note 23. Matt. xxiv. 2.
Note 24. Rufin. Hist. l. 10. c. 37.
Note 25. Catech. 15. n. 15.
Note 26. Dem. Evang. l. 8. p. 406.
Note 27. Out of the very foundations
themselves, according to St. Chrysostom, Sozomen, and Theodoret.
Note 28. Hocque modo elemento destinatius
repellente. Amm. Marcel. l. xxiii. c. 1. A very emphatical expression in the
mouth of a pagan. He seems by it to ascribe sense to the element, by which he
discovers the finger of God visibly defeating the obstinacy of the undertaking,
and a renewal of the eruption so often till it overcame the rashness of the
most obstinate.
Note 29. Theod. Hist. l. 3. c. 20.
Note 30. Soc. lib. 3. c. 20.
Note 31. St. Greg. Naz. Or. 4. adv. Julian.
Theodoret indeed says that these crosses were shaded with a dark colour: but
this without any real contradiction to St. Gregory’s relation of the matter,
because, like the phosphorus, they were of a darkish hue by day, and lucid by
night.
Note 32. St. Greg. Naz. Or. 9.
Note 33. Or. 4, adv. Julian.
Note 34. This learned author demonstrates,
lib. 2. ch. 4. that the exceptions of Mr. Basnage are founded on glaring
mistakes and misrepresentations of his authorities.
Note 35. See Warburton, p. 88.
His Majesty King Abdullah II Jordan arrived last 8 April 2014 to Vienna. A week after Mr. Shimon Peres three-days visit to Austria. His Majesty was accompanied by Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad, his representative and personal envoy and chief advisor for religious and cultural affairs, Dr. Fayez Tarawneh, the head of the Royal court in Jordan, Mr. Nasser Judeh, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Mr. Imad Fakhoury, the Director of the King’s Office.
