Cyril

CONCERNING S. CYRIL, PATRIARCH OF ALEXANDRIA.

In the year of Christ 445.

Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (S.)

From various sources.

Section I. The feast day, era, and relics of S. Cyril.

[1] The Catholic Church owes much to S. Cyril of Alexandria, of S. Cyril, that most celebrated man, whose singular erudition and constancy of mind most faithfully and most felicitously championed her against the heretics: and for that reason he is called "the Advocate of the right and unblemished faith" in the Third Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, act. 3, in the petition of the Deacon Theodore, inserted into the ecclesiastical records of the Council. Indeed, as Vicar of the Apostolic See, he was honored with equal dignity alongside S. Leo, the Roman Pontiff, in the Council held at Constantinople in the year of Christ 536 under the Patriarch Menas. Thus at Session 1: Since the Synod of Chalcedon made memorial in the orthodox faith not only of Leo of holy memory, but also of Cyril, the God-beloved Pastor of the Alexandrians; and Cyril of Alexandria is indeed proclaimed in the diptychs, but Leo of holy memory is not proclaimed; we think it just that what was lacking should be supplied: and because they were equally honored by this holy Synod for the defense of the orthodox faith, similarly let them also be proclaimed in the sacred diptychs for the benefit and peace of the Church.

[2] His feast day among the Greeks, 9 June. The Greeks celebrate the feast of S. Cyril on the 9th of June, on which day the Menologion reads: The feast day of S. Cyril, a most learned man, an outstanding champion of the Catholic faith: whom the Supreme Pontiff Celestine judged worthy to delegate his authority to at the Council of Ephesus. In the Menaea: Of our Holy Father Cyril, Pope of Alexandria.

"I celebrate Cyril, the friend of my Lord, And the champion of the Lady Ever-Virgin."

[3] The virtues of the same are celebrated with various odes, hymns, and antiphons in the same Menaea, both on this day and on the 18th of January, on which they again venerate him with solemn worship, together with S. Athanasius, and honor both with this encomium: SS. Athanasius and Cyril, Patriarchs of Alexandria. Another feast of his and S. Athanasius on 18 January. Of these two, S. Athanasius lived under the Emperor Constantine the Great, and at the First Council of Nicaea, not yet having been created Bishop, confuted and put to shame Arius with words and writings full of wisdom. After the death of Alexander, having been ordained Archbishop of Alexandria, harassed by Constantius with various exiles and assailed by unceasing persecutions for forty-two years, he migrated to the Lord. S. Cyril, however, flourished under Theodosius the Younger, nephew on his mother's side of Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, and his successor in the Archiepiscopal See, who presided over the Third Synod celebrated at Ephesus, and condemned and deposed Nestorius (who had vomited forth many blasphemous doctrines against our Lady, the Mother of God). Cyril, having shone forth with many illustrious deeds and virtues, migrated to the Lord.

[4] Athanasius was of moderate bodily stature, modestly broad, somewhat stooped, of pleasing appearance, with a becoming baldness, the appearance of each: a hooked nose; his beard not overly long, but spreading and covering the cheeks; with a small mouth, as if cut in; his hair not entirely gray, nor purely white, but tawny. S. Cyril, however, was somewhat short, with a more graceful complexion, with an appearance that suggested refusal; with thick and hairy eyebrows, large and arched, enclosing the forehead; with a well-proportioned nose whose septum, or gap between the nostrils, was somewhat narrow; with extended cheeks, swelling lips, a wide mouth, a rather narrow forehead, but bald on top, venerable with a thick and long beard, with curly hair on both sides, yellowish and half-gray. Their feast day is celebrated in the most holy church of Hagia Sophia.

[5] The Latins record Cyril on this 28th of January. The ancient Martyrology of S. Martin of Trier: "At Alexandria, his feast day among the Latins: of Cyril, Bishop and Confessor." Usuard, Bede, Ado, Notker, Bellinus: "At Alexandria, of Blessed Cyril the Bishop, who was the most illustrious champion of the Catholic faith." The same is found in many MSS. It is added in the Roman: "illustrious for learning and holiness, he rested in peace." Galesinius, with slightly altered phrasing: "At Alexandria, of S. Cyril the Bishop, a most vigorous and most devout defender of the Catholic faith." The MS. Florarium and the Cologne Martyrology place Alexandria in Greece, an enormous error, unless we take "Greece" in the general sense of the wide extent of the Greek language throughout the East at that time. Felicius records him on the 29th of January; Maurolycus on both days: by whom, as also on this day in the German Martyrology, he is said to have rested under the Emperor Theodosius the Elder.

[6] Perhaps following these, Alegreus in the Paradisus Carmelitici Decoris, status 2, age 6, ch. 12, wrote as follows: The year and day of his death: "At length, renowned for wisdom, eloquence, acumen, and holiness, he was illustrious under Theodosius the Great and Pope Celestine I, in the year of the world's salvation 444." But how distant are these: the reign of Theodosius the Great and the pontificate of Celestine! Theodosius the Great, or the Elder, died in the year of Christ 395. Celestine was raised to the pontificate of the Roman Church in the year of Christ 423, under the consuls Marinianus and Asclepiodotus. Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, the predecessor and paternal uncle of Cyril, died on the 15th of October of the year 412, when the consuls were Honorius Augustus for the ninth time and Theodosius the Younger Augustus for the fifth time. But on the third day after the death of Theophilus, Cyril obtained the episcopate, as will be stated below from Socrates. That he lived as bishop for thirty-two years is attested by his nephew through his sister, Athanasius the Presbyter, and Theodore the Deacon of Alexandria, in their petitions to Pope Leo and to the Council of Chalcedon, inserted in Session 3 of the latter, although in the petition of Theodore these words are not read in the Greek. Liberatus the Deacon follows in his Breviarium, ch. 10, and Nicephorus, bk. 14 of his Ecclesiastical History, ch. 47. He reached, therefore, at least the year of Christ 444, in which Baronius and other recent writers say he died, under the reign of Theodosius the Younger and the pontificate of Leo the Great. They fix the day of his death as the 5th of the Ides of June, because in the Menologion of the Greeks it is called his feast day, as was said above, and therefore, as Liberatus writes, he is said to have died in the thirty-second year of his episcopate. But since the term "feast day" in the sacred calendars very often merely signifies that a solemn veneration is held for a given Saint on that day, this is a rather weak argument. And perhaps he died on this 28th of January of the year 445, having completed thirty-two years in the episcopate, as Athanasius, Theodore, and Nicephorus indicate.

[7] Relics at Rome. Ottavio Panciroli, in his Hidden Treasures of the Holy City, region 5, church 2, writes that when the impious Leo the Isaurian stirred up the persecution against sacred images and the relics of the Saints, among the monks who fled from the East were two nuns who, besides other relics of the Saints, brought certain relics of this S. Cyril to Rome, and that these are preserved in the church of S. Maria in Campo Marzio.

Section II. Homeland, studies, monastic life.

[8] The most devout Carmelite Order celebrates the feast of S. Cyril with the solemnity of a double office on the 28th of January, on which day in the fourth lesson at the second Nocturn the following is recited at Matins: "Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, born of distinguished parents, Whether he was Alexandrian, and also the nephew on his brother's side of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, was sent as a young man by him to Athens for the sake of studies, and having made great progress, betook himself to John, Bishop of Jerusalem, to be imbued with the perfection of the Christian life. Through association with him, withdrawing to Mount Carmel, he there led a heavenly life on earth for some time with certain pious men dwelling there." So it reads there. Andreas Scotus of our Society, in his encomium of Cyril, which he prefixed to his Latin translations of Cyril's Paschal Sermons, writes the following about his life before the episcopate: "It appears that Cyril was born in the city of Alexandria in Egypt, of respectable parents; and that he was educated there in letters, where studies at that time especially flourished in that Academy. The names of his parents I have not yet discovered. He had Theophilus as his uncle," etc.

[9] Or Greek, indeed Constantinopolitan? This concerning his homeland would suffice, were it not that Alegreus argues to the contrary in the Paradisus Carmeliticus: "S. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria," he says, "Greek by nation, a native of Constantinople." Trithemius also, in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers, in both the Cologne edition of Petrus Quentelius of the year 1546 and the Frankfurt Wechel edition of 1601, calls him Greek by nation; but not a native of Constantinople, which is read in Thomas Saracenus as if from Trithemius's encomium of Cyril. But granted: suppose Trithemius wrote this: whence did he derive it? By what argument does he prove it?

[10] Theodore the Deacon, in his petition at session 3 of the Council of Chalcedon, acting against Dioscorus, Cyril's successor, has the following about Cyril's associates: At the beginning of his episcopate, Dioscorus immediately deprived me of my clerical rank, threatening also to expel me from that great city of Alexandria, for no other reason than that I had earned the familiarity and good will of Cyril of holy memory. For his intention is not only to drive out from that city his relatives (in Greek, tous apo genous autou, his kinsmen), or deprive them of life, but also his associates. Athanasius the Presbyter, in his petition, amplifies the same at greater length: Cyril, he says, of holy and blessed memory, for thirty-two years Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, living blamelessly and with right faith, had been indeed to me, Athanasius, His sisters and other blood relatives at Alexandria, and to my brother Paulus of illustrious memory, our uncle, and the brother of my mother Isidora. And shortly after: At the beginning of his episcopate, Dioscorus, threatening death to me and my brother, who was then still alive, expelled us from the most famous Alexandria... my brother Paulus of illustrious memory, unable to endure the torments and injuries, departed from human affairs. But I, Athanasius, and our maternal aunts, and the wife and sons of my brother, remained to our misfortune among the living... he arranged for our houses to be turned into churches, and mine, Athanasius's, with its four stories above, and which by its situation could not be made into a church, he seized along with the aforesaid houses, also holding other neighboring houses and entrances... After these monies, from our maternal aunts, the sisters indeed of Cyril of holy and blessed memory, pressing them even to the soul and besieging them, having threatened them even with death, he exacted eighty-five pounds of gold, and no less from the sons of my brother of illustrious memory, wretched in their orphanhood, and from his wife mourning her husband's death, forty pounds of gold, etc. These things indicate not obscurely that S. Cyril was Alexandrian both by family and by birth.

[11] In what place, whether at Athens or at Alexandria, he was cultivated in literary studies, we do not find among the ancients. Concerning his monastic life there is a great controversy between Baronius and the Carmelite Fathers. That he was a Carmelite, Thomas Saracenus in the Menologium of the Carmelites and Alegreus in the Apologia for John of Jerusalem, discourse 2, ch. 11, attack Baronius sharply before all others. They cite a story taken from a certain French Chronicle, and tenaciously defend it. We shall report it in the words of Alegreus: "For indeed that Latin history," he says, "of which we spoke above, written in Latin and French (which was kept in the possession of the King of France, as Coria relates, bk. 9, ch. 18, of the Dilucidarium Carmelitarum, Emanuel Romanus in the sacred antiquities of the Carmelites concerning illustrious men, under Cyril of Alexandria, and others), which Baronius undeservedly wished to scorn and dismiss, since by the most weighty writers of Carmelite antiquities it is embraced as most worthy of credence with both hands; poorly proved from a certain French document, it openly attests to S. Cyril's monasticism on Carmel, in the very words of that Legate or Ambassador residing at the Council of Ephesus on behalf of the King of France, who upon his return from that Council addressed his King, in his first copy, which we saw and read in the ancient library of the most devout Cistercian monastery of la Oliva, and bursts forth in his French idiom thus: 'At the Council of Ephesus, which was celebrated by two hundred Bishops, in the year of the Lord 418, in the place of Pope Celestine there presided the blessed S. Cyril, a monk of Mount Carmel; who for his holy life, admirable knowledge and doctrine, disputing against Nestor, Patriarch of Constantinople, who placed a stain upon the honor of the Virgin Mary and upon that of Jesus Christ her son, carried off the victory over him.'" Which words we now hold translated into Latin as follows: "At the Council of Ephesus, which was celebrated by two hundred Bishops, in the year of the Lord 418, there presided, in the place of Pope Celestine I, Blessed Cyril, a monk of Mount Carmel, who for the holiness of his life, with admirable knowledge and doctrine, disputing against Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who placed a stain upon the Blessed Virgin Mary and upon her son Christ Jesus, overcame him."

[12] But these things were rightly rejected by Baronius. What Christian King of France was there at that time who could have sent Legates to the council? Clovis, having begun his reign around the year of Christ 482, first embraced the Christian religion in the year 496. Of no credibility. Or did the Legate address the King in modern French (as Alegreus seems to assert)? But those first Frankish Kings spoke Sicambrian, and the modern French idiom was formed, or rather corrupted, from Latin long afterward. Not to mention that the Council of Ephesus was held in the year of Christ 431, not 418. We marvel that learned men should bring forward such frivolous arguments.

[13] Baronius indeed attacks that narrative sharply, vol. 6 of the Annals, at the year 444, no. 17. "Certainly," he says, "we repudiate and blow away that fabrication, therefore refuted by Baronius, put forward by an uncertain author, namely a Chronicle which they pretend once existed in the possession of a certain King of France, in which they relate that the same S. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, was a monk of Mount Carmel: to which assertion Trithemius lent credence far too lightly. Whence, I ask, comes this information to an uncertain author, if the authors who are certain and approved, contemporaries of the same Cyril and most diligent recorders of his deeds, left these things buried in silence, not knowing them? Or what mention is there among the writers of this period of Mount Carmel as cultivated by professors of the monastic life? For although in S. Jerome, Palladius, Evagrius, Cassian, Theodoret, Cyril the monk, and other writers of this century, frequent mention is made of monks dwelling in Palestine, nowhere at all among them is there mention of Carmelite monks. Away, therefore, with this sort of tale about the monasticism of Cyril on Carmel, like that one not unlike it, by which it is also related that John, the Origenist Bishop of Jerusalem, was also a Carmelite monk: for as these things are lightly fabricated, so also are they easily refuted. The burning desire for ancestral nobility sometimes compels men to rave." So says Baronius.

[14] Concerning John of Jerusalem, many men illustrious in learning and wisdom think differently, and they establish (which is relevant here) his monastic life. John, Bishop of Jerusalem, formerly a monk, S. Jerome himself (who is also counted among the Carmelites by Alegreus, as are almost all the distinguished monks of that age), in epistle 62 to Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, speaking of John, exclaims: "A monk (alas!) threatens monks and procures their exile, and this a monk who boasts of holding the Apostolic chair." But whether he was a monk, or even an Abbot, on Mount Carmel is the question. Whether on Carmel, S. Jerome, in the Life of S. Hilarion, testifies that before Hilarion returned from Egypt, there were not yet any monasteries in Palestine. And then: "Nor did anyone in Syria know of a monk before S. Hilarion": so that it is remarkable that Thomas Saracenus should write, without the testimony of any author, that there had previously been Carmelite monasteries in Palestine, which Hilarion then visited and instructed. "But by his example," says Jerome, "innumerable monasteries began to exist throughout all Palestine." Why then might not some persons, incited by the ancient example of the most holy Prophets Elijah and Elisha, have inhabited Mount Carmel? S. James the Hermit, of whom we shall treat below, withdrew into a solitary place near the town of Porphyreon, not far from Mount Carmel: whose life was so celebrated that from twenty or thirty monasteries monks and Clergy would come to him to receive his blessing and to be confirmed by him. That one of these monasteries was on Carmel, or at its base, is quite probable. And why less there, or why not there rather than on the rest of the Palestinian seacoast? And Cyril's teacher -- this is not established. But whether John was a monk there, or even an Abbot, before he assumed the episcopate, and whether S. Cyril lived under him as a monk, we do not read among the ancients. By Trithemius, Cyril is called "the former glory and distinguished cultivator of Mount Carmel." Many later writers follow Trithemius, whom Alegreus and Saracenus cite. But one might wonder why he should have chosen to embrace the monastic life specifically in Palestine, when that way of living was first devised and cultivated in Egypt, and at that time especially flourished there.

[15] Another question may be raised: whether it is at least established from the ancients that Cyril was a monk, in whatever place either of Palestine or of Egypt. Saracenus considers it clear from the axiom of the Greeks that in the time of Blessed Cyril and before, throughout the regions of the East, no one was allowed to be raised to the dignity of the episcopate unless chosen from the monasteries of monks: and he asserts that this can be easily confirmed from the Menologion of the Greeks as well. Not all Bishops in former times were taken from among monks. But for us, who daily consult that Menologion and the Menaea, the proof is difficult; indeed the contrary appears evident both from the same Menaea and especially from the writers of that period. Together with Athanasius, as we saw above, the Greeks venerate Cyril: about the monastic life of both they are silent, although Alegreus also writes that Athanasius spent no small time as a monk and was the minister of that great Abbot Antony in the wilderness of Egypt, because he himself openly affirms this in the Life of S. Antony. We gave this Life, carefully annotated, on the 17th of January, and found no trace of the monastic life of S. Athanasius. The prolegomena, section 8, may be consulted.

[16] Isidore of Pelusium, who wrote frequent letters to S. Cyril when he was already Bishop, seems to have written the twenty-fifth letter of his first book to him before his episcopate, It seems that Cyril was a monk, when he was living among monks in solitude. It reads as follows: "What benefit does the withdrawal of John into the desert, which you once zealously imitated, bring to you, since now you by no means follow him; but turn yourself to private concerns, and create tumult in solitude, and while removed from the company of men, are disturbed? For to be at rest in outward habit and appearance, but to be defiled by the changes and disturbances of the mind, both covers the understanding with darkness and extinguishes the labors already undertaken, and renders an easy and ready victory to the disturbances of the soul, and causes the soldier to flee having cast away his shield. Moreover, no one serving as a soldier entangles himself in secular affairs, that he may please the one by whom he was enlisted in military service: but he bears arms on every side, preparing himself for that contest which shall please the military commander." So much for the monastic life. Let us hasten to more certain matters.

Side Note: Louis XI.

Section III. The Episcopate. The Novatians expelled. Demons put to flight.

[17] Socrates, bk. 7, ch. 7 (but somewhat hostilely, since Cyril immediately turned his attention to purging his Church of the Novatian heresy, and Socrates himself was a Novatian), writes as follows: Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, having fallen into a stupor, departed from life, in the ninth consulship of Honorius and the fifth of Theodosius, He becomes Bishop, with Timothy as his rival: on the 15th of October. Thereupon a controversy arose about choosing a Bishop. For some labored to raise Timothy the Archdeacon, and others Cyril, the son of Theophilus's brother, to that episcopal See. And although the people contended about the matter, and though *Abudacius, the Commander of the garrison troops, aided the party of Timothy, nevertheless on the third day after the death of Theophilus, Cyril was placed in the episcopal seat and obtained the episcopate: and he assumed for himself a greater authority than Theophilus had ever possessed. For from that time the Bishop of Alexandria, in addition to his dominion over the sacred Clergy, also acquired authority over secular affairs. Wherefore Cyril, immediately upon closing the churches of the Novatians which were in Alexandria, he closes the churches of the heretics, not only thoroughly removed all the sacred treasure that was in them, but also deprived their Bishop Theopemptus of all his possessions. So writes Socrates, but on account of his advocacy for his own sect he is elsewhere also frequently suspected of bad faith, as Baronius rightly warns at the year of Christ 412, no. 45, and in his Notes on the Roman Martyrology. Indeed the same Socrates, bk. 7, ch. 11, attempts to brand S. Pope Celestine with the same mark, because he had taken churches from the Novatians who were in Rome. The episcopate of Rome, endowed with great power, he says, no differently than that of Alexandria, as though going beyond the bounds of the priesthood, had already previously lapsed into secular authority.

[18] When Cyril had expelled the heretics, the allies and helpers of the demons, he then also attacked the demons themselves and drove them from their seats. Canopus was ten stadia distant from Alexandria, as the Acts of SS. Cyrus and John attest at the end; and a certain village was two stadia distant from Canopus, a place infested by demons, named Manuthe. This village was a habitation of demons, and malignant spirits dwelt in it. Theophilus, the Bishop and, as we said before, Patriarch of Alexandria, had wished to purify the place from demons and to occupy it with the characters and figures of Christ's Evangelists and Apostles, as suited to its preservation; but he did not bring what he had planned to completion. For death intervened, that inexorable thing for men, and took him from the present life. Afterwards, Cyril, who succeeded him in the See, also had no small concern to free the place from the harm of demons. And when he had often prayed to God about the matter, an Angel appearing to him in a vision commanded that the relics of the great Cyrus and of Mark the Evangelist be placed in this village. For thus it would come about that the place would be freed from the harm of the demons. Why he did not also mention John is sufficiently shown by Cyril: [he purifies it by divine admonition, having translated the relics of Saints thither,] but it is also manifest to all of its own accord that by the name of Cyrus the name of John is wholly indicated as well. For just as their way of life was shared, and the confession and consummation made for Christ; so also their calling is entirely simple and without any distinction. Hence the martyrial relics of both were translated to Manuthe, on the twenty-eighth of the month of June, splendidly and with sacred solemnity; for the guardianship of the village, the flight of the demons, the liberation from diseases; and now the place is consecrated to God and to His Martyrs and ministers, by the grace and clemency of our Lord Jesus Christ. Baronius refers these acts to the year of Christ 414, no. 20, where he says this temple existed at Canopus, not at Manuthe, not having sufficiently considered these Acts, which we shall illustrate on the 31st of January.

Side Note: Others read Abundantius.

Section IV. The Jews expelled from Alexandria.

[19] Socrates, bk. 7, ch. 13, writes that the Jews were expelled from Alexandria by Cyril at the same time that Chrysanthus, Bishop of the Novatians, was administering the church of his sect at Constantinople, of whom he had treated in ch. 12. He had been appointed in the year of Christ 412, and died under the consuls Monaxius and Plinta, in the year of Christ 419. At the same time, therefore, says Socrates, The Jews stir up disturbances, the Jewish nation was expelled from Alexandria by Bishop Cyril for the following reason. The people of Alexandria delight in seditions above all others: and when an occasion for exciting them has arisen, crimes almost intolerable are committed; for the fury of the people is never quieted without bloodshed. At that time a tumult was being stirred up in the multitude, not from any necessary cause, but from the zeal for watching dancers (an evil which creeps through all cities). For on the Sabbath day a great crowd flocked together to watch a certain dancer. And since the Jews, who take a holiday on that day, devoted themselves especially on the occasion of spectacles: not to hearing the Law but to watching spectacles and theatrical shows, that day became a cause of the factions of the people fighting against one another. And although the discord of the people was somehow settled at that time by the Prefect of Alexandria, nevertheless the Jews did not cease to be adversaries of the other faction of the people. And although the Jews were always hostile to the Christians, then, on account of the dancers, they became much more hostile to them.

[20] And so when Orestes, the Prefect of Alexandria, was arranging for a politeia (for so the Alexandrians call the public edicts of the Prefect) to be posted in the theater, certain associates of Bishop Cyril were also present, They stir up the Prefect against Cyril's associates: to examine the edicts published by the Prefect, among whom was a man named Hierax, a teacher of elementary letters, who was a most attentive listener of Bishop Cyril and was accustomed to most diligently stir up applause in his sermons. As soon as the multitude of Jews caught sight of this Hierax in the theater, they immediately began to cry out that he had come to the theater for no other reason than to incite the people to sedition. Orestes, although the power of the Bishops had been hateful to him even before, because through them not a little had been detracted from the authority of those who were appointed by the Emperor to administer the magistracies; nevertheless was then especially offended because Cyril seemed to be prying into his edicts; and therefore, having publicly seized Hierax in the theater, he subjected him to severe punishments.

[21] Warned by Cyril, When Cyril learned of this matter, he summoned the leading men of the Jews: he threatened them with the punishments they deserved if they did not cease stirring up tumults against the Christians. But the multitude of the Jews, upon learning of the Bishop's threats, began to burn with a much greater flame of anger and to devise schemes for harming the Christians: they conspire to slaughter the Christians; which indeed I shall now show to have been the principal cause of the Jews being expelled from Alexandria. The Jews, having given a token among themselves, namely that each should wear a ring made from the bark of a palm tree, organized a nocturnal attack against the Christians. And so one night they arranged for persons to cry out throughout all quarters of the city that the entire church known by the name of Alexander was ablaze with fire. Upon hearing this, Christians ran together from every direction which they also perpetrate by nocturnal fraud: to rescue the church from the fire. Then the Jews immediately attacked the Christians and slaughtered them. And just as they kept their hands from their own people, recognized by the display of their rings, so they did away with whatever Christians happened to encounter them.

[22] When day dawned, the authors of the crime were by no means obscure or unknown. Whereupon Cyril, gravely moved by the matter, they are expelled from the city: proceeded with a great force directly to the synagogues of the Jews (for so their temples are called): and put some of the Jews to death, expelled others from the city, and permitted their possessions to be plundered by the multitude. And so the Jews, who from the times of Alexander of Macedon had inhabited that city, were then all cast out from it and dispersed, living in various other places. Some afterwards converted. Adamantius, a Jew by birth, who taught medicine, having gone to Constantinople, betook himself to Bishop Atticus. After he had professed the Christian religion, he again dwelt in Alexandria.

[23] Orestes, the Prefect of that city, bore Cyril's action with a very ill will, and felt great sorrow that so splendid a city had been wholly deprived of so great a multitude of people. The Prefect, offended by the expulsion of the Jews, is hostile to Cyril. Wherefore he reported the events to the Emperor. Cyril also informed the Emperor of the crimes of the Jews by letter; and nevertheless sought to negotiate with Orestes about reconciling their friendship (for the people of Alexandria had urged him to do so). But when Orestes refused even to hear of friendship, Cyril held out to him the book of the Gospels (for he thought Orestes would reverence it). But when Orestes's mind could not be softened even by this means, and mortal enmity always persisted between him and Cyril, the disaster which I shall now recount ensued. So writes Socrates. Nicephorus relates the same in bk. 14, ch. 14, although in his account there is no mention of the slaughter of the Jews; nor is it credible that it was perpetrated by the authority of the Bishop. One may recognize in Orestes the character of the politicians of our own time as well, who by whatever means and method they can, strive to seize the goods of Pontiffs and other ecclesiastical persons, to violate their rights, to undermine their authority, as though it were harmful to the interests of Kings; when no Kings have had all things succeed more happily than those who showed the greatest deference to the Church; while on the contrary we see those provinces overwhelmed by the most numerous calamities whose governance has been entrusted to such men.

Section V. Alexandrian disturbances. The erring corrected.

[24] Both Orestes the Prefect and Cyril reported to the Emperor the tragic history which we are about to relate. Would that the letters of Cyril survived! They would carry greater weight among right-thinking persons than those of that furious Orestes. Socrates, however, hostile to Cyril, seized upon the latter's report in bk. 7, chs. 14 and 15. Certain monks, he says, The monks of Nitria assault the Prefect with abuse; who dwelt near Mount Nitria, endowed with a more fiery temperament, just as they had already previously shown the same thing, beginning from the times of Theophilus, when they had been unjustly armed by him against Dioscorus and his brothers; so at that time also, inflamed with zeal of rivalry, they resolved to fight for Cyril with ready and eager spirit. And so about five hundred men, having gone out from the monasteries, hastened to the city of Alexandria, observed the Prefect as he was being conveyed about in his chariot, approached him, and began to call him a sacrificer, a pagan, and other abusive names.

[25] He, suspecting that an ambush had been laid for him by Cyril, cried out that he was a Christian and had been baptized at Constantinople by Bishop Atticus. But when the monks appeared to disdain his words, one of them, named Ammonius, and with stones: struck the Prefect's head with a stone: the Prefect, with that wound inflicted, streamed with blood all over. Wherefore the Prefect's attendants, except for a few, all secretly withdrew from that place, each hiding himself in the crowd, one of them put to death under torture by the Prefect, taking care lest they be killed by the casting of stones. Meanwhile the people of Alexandria flocked there in great numbers, eager to avenge the Prefect against the monks; all of whom they put to flight, except Ammonius, whom they brought to the Prefect. The Prefect publicly, as the laws require, put him to the question and tortured him until he gave up his last breath.

[26] This matter was reported to the Emperor's ears not long after. Indeed, Cyril also communicated the same matter to him by letter, but presented in an entirely different light. He also took up the body of Ammonius and concealed it in a certain church, but named it not by the name of Ammonius but of Thaumasius. And when he had extolled in the church the greatness of his spirit, honorably buried by S. Cyril, as one who had endured a grievous contest for piety, with praise and preaching, he ordered him to be called a Martyr. But those who were more moderate, even among the Christians themselves, by no means approved of Cyril's zeal for Ammonius. For they knew that Ammonius had not died under torture to avoid being compelled to deny Christ, but had paid the penalty of his own rashness. Wherefore Cyril himself allowed that deed to pass gradually into oblivion by silence. But not even yet was that bitter contention undertaken between Cyril and Orestes settled: for another disaster not unlike this one, which I am about to relate, renewed it.

[27] There was at Alexandria a certain woman named Hypatia, the daughter of Theon the Philosopher. She had made such progress in letters that she far surpassed all the Philosophers of her time: and not only succeeded to the Platonic school, derived from Plotinus, Hypatia, a teacher of philosophy, but also expounded all the teachings and disciplines of all the Philosophers to everyone who wished to hear her. Wherefore all who were inflamed with the passion for philosophy flocked to her from everywhere. Moreover, because of the firm confidence of mind which she had drawn from the fountains of learning, she did not hesitate to appear even in the presence of Princes with the greatest modesty. Nor was she ashamed to come forth into the midst of a crowd of men. For everyone venerated and received her with a certain reverence, on account of the singular moderation of her mind. And so the flame of envy was kindled against her at that time. For since she met rather frequently with Orestes in conversation, thought to alienate the Prefect from Cyril, the people of the Church began to accuse her of completely blocking the Bishop's access to a reconciliation of friendship with Orestes. Accordingly, certain men who were by nature somewhat more hot-headed, whose leader in that church was Peter the Reader, with one accord watched for the woman returning home from somewhere; they knocked her from the chariot in which she was riding; they dragged her to the church cruelly killed called the Caesareum; and having stripped her of her clothing, they tore her to pieces with sharp tiles until she died, dismembered her limbs, and carried the dismembered parts to the place called Cinaron, and burned them with fire. This deed brought no small stain of infamy upon both Cyril and the Church of Alexandria. For those who profess the Christian religion ought to be entirely averse to slaughter, fighting, and all things of that kind. These events took place in the fourth year of the episcopate of Cyril, in the tenth consulship of Honorius and the seventh of Theodosius, in the month of March, when the fasts were being observed.

[28] Synesius wrote several letters to Hypatia. Baronius treats of her at greater length, and considers that she was killed rather by the fury and tumult of the Alexandrians than by a conspiracy of the Clergy. In the year 416. Nicephorus also writes that these things occurred in the fourth year of the episcopate of Cyril. That fourth year began on the 18th of October of the year 415, and therefore this month of March is necessarily of the following year 416, in the consulship of the Emperor Theodosius VII, as is here stated, and of Palladius; not of Honorius X. In Nicephorus there is an uglier error: for although he had previously written that Cyril was elected in the fifth year of the Emperor Theodosius, here however he says Hypatia was killed in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, in the sixth year of the reign of Theodosius, when the eighth year was nearly expired. To Peter the Reader (perhaps the one who is considered the author of this murder), S. Isidore of Pelusium wrote epistles 177 and 305 of bk. 3, and epistle 555 of bk. 5. Those others who perpetrated this crime appear to have been the Parabolani, by the Parabolani, as one may conjecture, or Parabolarij, or Paraboli, who undertook the care of the sick and even assisted those infected with the plague; who, since they were subject to the Bishop, favored him and caused trouble for the Prefects, on which account Theodosius in this year 416 issued a rescript to Monaxius, Praetorian Prefect, L. 42, de Episc. & Cleric., Cod. Theod., forbidding that their association should exceed the number of five hundred; and ordering that they be chosen not from the wealthy but from the poor; and that none should attend any public spectacle, or approach the court, unless individually and in case of urgent necessity. He later, however, issued another rescript, L. 43, in the same place, allowing their assembly to be expanded to six hundred, over all of whom the Bishop of Alexandria should preside; for he also calls them Clerics, but Baronius interprets this as being of a lesser order, at the year of Christ 416, at the end. Isidore of Pelusium seems to have referred to this in bk. 5, epistle 268, to S. Cyril, and epistle 278, to Peter, where he disputes whether royal power can reduce the Clergy to order.

[29] We append what is related about Cyril's prudent conduct in recalling a certain anchorite, a holy man but one lapsing into heresy, A hermit erring in the faith through simplicity, in bk. 5 of the Lives of the Fathers, booklet 18, no. 4. Abbot Daniel related concerning another great elder, who dwelt in the lower parts of Egypt, that he was saying in his simplicity that Melchizedek was himself the Son of God. This was reported to Cyril of holy memory, Archbishop of Alexandria, and he sent to him. But knowing that the elder was a wonder-worker, and that whatever he asked of God was revealed to him, and that he was saying this word out of simplicity, he employed the following stratagem, saying: "Abba, I beg you, for it is in my thought that Melchizedek is himself the Son of God; and again another thought of mine says that he is not, but that he is a man, and was the high priest of God. As if he himself were in doubt. Since therefore I am in doubt about this, I have sent to you, that you might pray to God, that He might deign to reveal to you what the truth is about this matter." The elder, trusting in his manner of life, said with confidence: "Give me three days' respite, and I will pray to God about this matter, and I will report to you what shall have been revealed to me about it." Going therefore into his cell, he prayed to God about this matter: and coming after three days he said to Cyril of holy memory: "Melchizedek is a man." Cyril corrects him deftly. The Archbishop answered him: "How is this established in your mind, Abba?" And he said to him: "God showed me all the Patriarchs, so that each one of them passed before me from Adam to Melchizedek, and the Angel standing by me said: Behold, this is Melchizedek. Therefore, Archbishop, be assured that it is so." And the elder went away and preached of his own accord that Melchizedek was a man. And Cyril of holy memory rejoiced greatly.

Section VI. The name of S. Chrysostom inscribed in the diptychs.

[30] This entire controversy, agitated by prolonged efforts and at last most happily resolved, through the remarkable constancy of the Roman Pontiff, out of reverence for the sacred laws, [Efforts made for the name of S. Chrysostom to be inscribed in the sacred records:] was fully discussed by us in the Life of S. Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, on the 8th of January, and each matter duly restored to its proper time. Here we shall bring forward only those things which pertain to Cyril. Nicetas the Philosopher, considered by Baronius in vol. 10, at the year of Christ 848, no. 34, to be a most faithful writer (of whom we shall say more on the 23rd of October in the Life of S. Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, written by him), this Nicetas, I say, inserted into his history the stages by which this matter, so long in negotiation, achieved its desired end, adducing letters exchanged between Atticus and Cyril on this subject, which Baronius, pronouncing them written with every fidelity, recites at no. 46 and following, at the year 412; for he supposed that the name of Chrysostom was inscribed in the diptychs in that year, which we have shown in the Life of Atticus to have been done only in the last years of his life. He died on the 10th of October of the year 425. Alexander, Bishop of Antioch, of whom shortly, lived alongside him up to about the twentieth year of that century; after whose death Atticus inscribed the name of Chrysostom in the Constantinopolitan diptychs, and by his letters urged Cyril to do the same at Alexandria.

[31] We gave the letter of Atticus on the 8th of January: that the response of Cyril be given here, his mind too alienated from and offended against John prevents. Let there indeed be obliterated, if there are any things not only badly done by Saints, but even worse defended, so that they may be seen not so much as a scar decorously covered, but as a wound still foully gaping and oozing pus. When Nicephorus had recited those letters in ch. 27, he writes as follows in ch. 28: These things indeed Cyril both wrote and felt about the sacred Chrysostom, being in the service of a preconceived opinion which he had long since formed, following his uncle Theophilus. But since this dissension indeed flowed from jealousy, though not according to knowledge, and not from envy or diabolical contention, God saw fit that a man preeminent in both learning and virtue should not stumble in this one matter, so as to fail to attain the highest perfection. For those men were human, At length, by the admonition of S. Isidore, and subject to human affections. Wherefore some time later, Cyril was reconciled with that great man, even after his death, and corrected his error, with many others urging him, but especially with Isidore of Pelusium, now reproving and now admonishing him, and also with a divine and more mysterious revelation coming in addition. For he seemed to see himself expelled from the sacred buildings by John, who was relying especially upon a divine and godly retinue around him, and moved by an apparition of the Blessed Virgin, and the Mother of the Lord interceding with John on his behalf and, among many other things, especially urging that she be received into the sacred temples, since he had fought most strenuously for her glory, as will be related. When Blessed Cyril pondered this vision thoughtfully in his mind, he condemned himself for having inveighed against the holy man; and thereafter, having come to know the truth, devoted himself to the Church of Chrysostom, admired the man, and deeply repented that he had been rashly provoked against him. Therefore, doing the complete opposite of his former policy, he solemnly inscribes the name, he convened a provincial synod, and he himself and the remaining Bishops of the great Sees together proposed the name of John for the sacred register.

[32] Those who claim that Cyril destroyed other books of the great Father The writings of Chrysostom were not destroyed by him appear to speak less than truly. For if any of his writings were to be destroyed, those which still survive ought to have been destroyed, since in them his purpose and plan is most fully expressed; unless God, having care for the benefit of men, had preserved them. Since I found this in the secret history of Nicetas the Philosopher, who was also called David, and likewise in other writers, I thought it should be inserted into this work of mine: lest it should occur to anyone to wonder how two such great lights, exercising mutual enmities, both attained the highest sanctity, and were pillars of the Church, with these enmities bringing no detriment to the glory of either.

Section VII. The Nestorian heresy detected.

[33] Upon the death of Atticus, Sisinnius succeeded. After whose death, says Socrates, bk. 7, ch. 29, it seemed good to the Emperor, on account of men who pursued vanities, Nestorius becomes Bishop of Constantinople, to elect no one from that Church to that episcopate (although many desired Philip, and many Proclus, who had been designated), but rather to summon a foreigner from Antioch. For there was at that place Nestorius, a native of Germanicia, with an especially sonorous voice and fluent tongue: and for that reason, as being very suited to teaching the people, he was summoned at their recommendation. After a period of three months had elapsed, Nestorius was conducted from Antioch to Constantinople; and although he was praised and extolled by many for his temperance, yet what his character was besides, the very first beginning of his teaching sufficiently demonstrated to prudent men. For as soon as he had been ordained Bishop on the 4th of the Ides of April, under the consuls Felix and Taurus, straightaway, when he was delivering an address before the Emperor, he uttered this sentiment, which is on many lips, in the presence of all the people: "Give me, O Emperor, the earth purged of heretics, and I will give you heaven in return: assist me in vanquishing heretics, and I will assist you in vanquishing the Persians."

[34] This splendid beginning of Nestorius, although Socrates proceeds to castigate him at length (himself a heretic), was praised by Pope Celestine and Cyril in letters addressed to Nestorius himself: the latter recalls his own letters in his apologetic epistle to the Emperor Theodosius, he conducts himself laudably at first: vol. 5 of the Council of Ephesus, ch. 2. "Nestorius was chosen," he says, "as an outstanding herald of the Apostolic and Evangelical doctrine, a distinguished artificer in promoting piety, and also as one who was admirably founded in right and blameless faith. And Your Majesty desired this man to be such, as did all the Bishops of the holy Churches, and I myself as well. Certainly, when I received letters from the most pious Bishops deputed for this purpose concerning his ordination, suspecting nothing ill, indeed praising and rejoicing, and wishing that all the best things might befall him through divine bounty as a brother and fellow-minister, I wrote back."

[35] But, as the same Cyril immediately adds, he was chosen as a sheep but found to be a wolf; as a sincere and faithful servant, but he loved the opposite; as a vine fertile with grapes, but according to the Scriptures he brought forth thorns; as an industrious farmer, afterwards he teaches heresies, but he lay in wait against the field; as a good shepherd, at last, but he turned out more savage than wild beasts. In agreement with Cyril, Vincent of Lerins, a writer of these times, laments the scandal inflicted upon the Church by Nestorius: "What a trial," he says, "do we think it was recently, when the unhappy Nestorius, suddenly turned from a sheep into a wolf, began to tear the flock of Christ? When those very ones who were being bitten still for the most part believed him to be a sheep, and therefore lay the more open to his bites? For who could easily think that he was in error, whom he saw pursued with such zeal by the Bishops? Who, when he was celebrated with great love of the Saints and the highest favor of the people, daily handled the divine eloquences publicly, and also refuted the noxious errors of the Jews and the Gentiles? What just reason could he finally not give to make anyone believe that he was teaching rightly, preaching rightly, thinking rightly? Who, in order to open the way for his one heresy, was persecuting the blasphemies of all the heresies," etc.

[36] Of his heresy itself, and of its vigorous opponents, Prosper writes briefly in his Chronicle, under the consuls Taurus and Felix, in the year of Christ 428: "Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, attempts to introduce a new error into the Churches, preaching that Christ was born from Mary as a mere man and not as God, and that divinity was conferred upon Him for His merit. Against this impiety the industry of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, and the authority of Pope Celestine are chiefly opposed." Whence that heresy flowed, Baronius discusses accurately at the same year, nos. 30 and following. And he publishes it through pamphlets. Let us pursue the deceits of the most wicked impostor as detected by Cyril. Nestorius, therefore, by no means content with having sown the seed of his nefarious error at Constantinople, in order to spread it more widely, published pamphlets suffused with concealed poison through foreign lands as well, and sent them even to the monks of Egypt; fraudulently boasting that he taught nothing except according to the prescription of the Council of Nicaea.

[37] On account of these, great disturbances were stirred up among the monks of Egypt, for the quelling of which Cyril, chosen by God as the most vigorous champion of the orthodox faith, immediately girded himself; and since he placed little trust in the pamphlets which were circulated under the name of Nestorius on this subject, Cyril fortifies the monks against them, he prudently abstained from mentioning his name. He therefore wrote a first letter to the monks themselves, where among other things: "I hear that certain pernicious rumors have been sown among you, and that some are going astray who strive to demolish your sincere faith, and belching forth the bubbles of empty words before the unlearned people, dare to call into question whether it is lawful to call the holy Virgin Theotokos," etc. He proceeds with the most powerful arguments and the most weighty testimonies of both the Scriptures and the holy Fathers to prove that Christ is truly God, whence he then concludes that the title Mother of God truly and properly belongs to the Virgin Mother. And thus with this most weighty letter, full of learning and holy zeal for the faith, he strove to fortify the solitaries of his province, as with a kind of prophylactic remedy, against the burgeoning heresy, and to confirm them in the ancient doctrine of the faith. Fearing moreover lest the deadly poison of Nestorius should infect even the capitals of the world, from which a great danger to the Christian commonwealth might justly be feared, and he publishes other books: he composed three books On the Right Faith in God and the Divine Incarnation of the Word, which he called logous prosphoneticous. The first of these he dedicated to the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian; the two later ones to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria, everywhere suppressing the name of Nestorius, lest Theodosius's mind should be offended, since it was he who had arranged for Nestorius to be summoned from Antioch and elected Bishop.

[38] Meanwhile the evil was spreading more widely, and not only the report but the pestilent pamphlets themselves were brought to Rome to Pope Celestine. Having examined their blasphemies, with which they teemed, he wrote to Cyril to diligently investigate whether those things were truly written by Nestorius: At the command of Pope Celestine, for it did not seem credible that Nestorius, of whom he had so recently received such great and numerous praises in letters from the Eastern Bishops, should have been so suddenly led astray, and seized by such madness. This Cyril himself testifies in his first letters to the same Nestorius, written on the occasion that he had learned that Nestorius had been gravely offended by the letters he had written to the monks of Egypt against the blasphemous pamphlets. In these, after a clear account of why he had written to the monks, he earnestly exhorts him to repentance he admonishes Nestorius, and to a recantation of the word that had escaped through imprudence: which he again urged in a second letter, entirely doctrinal and most weighty.

[39] But letters were returned by Nestorius to each of these, both full of the utmost arrogance and pride, by which he exalted himself above the other Bishops. Indeed, attacking Cyril with every deceit, he gathered itinerant agents, men cast away for every crime and disgrace, who wandered about to spread insults against Cyril everywhere. They boasted, moreover, The emissaries of Nestorius cast many things against Cyril, (as Cyril himself testifies in his third letter to Nestorius, vol. 1, ch. 12, of the edition of Peltanus), words full of madness: "This one says that I have unjustly oppressed the blind and the needy," he says; "another, that I have drawn a sword against my mother; some, that I have stolen another's gold by the aid of a maidservant; others, finally, that I have always labored under suspicion of such impropriety as no one would wish even his bitterest enemies to labor under. But these people, and any others of the same sort, I pay little attention to, lest I should seem to extend the measure of my lowliness beyond my Master and Lord, or even beyond my elders."

[40] How Cyril, with devoted zeal of Christian charity, procured the salvation of Nestorius with the greatest patience, his letter to a certain follower of Nestorius, ch. 9, testifies: "No injury, therefore," he says, "no insult, no abuse moves me; although very many have been inflicted upon me, undeserved and by those from whom I least expected it. But let all these things be trampled down by voluntary forgetfulness; for God will one day judge such triflers. Only let the faith remain whole and safe, watching earnestly over his salvation, and I shall be dear to all: nor will I yield to anyone in loving the most religious Bishop Nestorius more ardently than I do; whom I also (God is my witness) heartily desire in Christ to be well spoken of among all, and to wash away the stain contracted on account of what he has previously committed; and to make it publicly known that what has been spread abroad by certain people about his perfidy is mere calumny, not truth. Matt. 5:44. For if we are urged by Christ's commandment to love our enemies, how is it not fitting that we embrace our friends and fellow-priests with every zeal of benevolence? But if those should arise who strive to demolish the faith, how shall we not willingly offer our very souls? Surely, even if death itself should hang over our heads, there will be no hesitation in us: for if we shall have feared to preach the truth for the glory of God, and willingly enduring all things: lest forsooth we fall into some trouble; with what face, I ask, shall we praise before the people the contests and triumphs of the holy Martyrs? Whom we celebrate by this one title especially, that they performed what has just been said with great constancy of mind, that is, they fought for the truth even unto death."

[41] At that time the Clergy of Constantinople composed a petition against the impious doctrine of Nestorius, which they intended to present to the Emperor. But lest they should seem to have done anything rashly, [who, having suppressed for a time the petition of the Clergy of Constantinople against Nestorius,] they first sent it to Cyril, that it might be approved by his judgment. To them he replied with the greatest gentleness and moderation of mind, as is found in ch. 10 of the same first volume: "I have received and read the petition produced by your efforts and sent to me, as though it ought not to be presented to the Emperor without our judgment: but since it attacks at length the one who is acting there (whether he be called brother or by whatever other name), I have suppressed it until now, lest rising up against us he should cavil that he was denounced to the Emperor for heresy through our agency. Meanwhile we have protested that henceforth we shall decline his judgment on the grounds of enmity; and if they persist in being altogether importunate, we shall transfer the present controversy to another forum. When therefore you have read through the petition, he permitted it to be presented, if any necessity demands it, deliver it: and if you perceive him persevering in these treacheries and devising everything against us, write a careful account. For I shall choose pious and prudent men, both Bishops and monks, whom I shall send to you at the earliest opportunity. For I will not give sleep to my eyes (as it is written), nor slumber to my eyelids, nor rest to my temples, until I have finished this contest for the salvation of all. Ps. 131:4. Therefore, since you have now learned my judgment, be men of courage. For letters will be prepared by me forthwith, and of the kind that is fitting, and to those to whom they ought to be sent: for I have resolved to undergo any labor for the sake of Christ's faith, and also to endure any torments, even those which are reckoned the most grievous of all punishments, prepared for every labor, until at last I shall have borne a death undertaken for this cause as a pleasure."

Section VIII. The vicarious authority of the Apostolic See delegated to Cyril.

[42] When Cyril had vainly attempted the amendment of Nestorius, he sent Possidonius, Deacon of the Church of Alexandria, as legate to Pope Celestine, to inform him of everything. But lest he should appear to have incited the Pontiff himself to the condemnation of Nestorius, he gave Possidonius this instruction: Cyril sends a Legate to Rome. "If you discover that the letters and books of expositions of Nestorius have been delivered to Celestine, then deliver my letters to him also; but if not, do not deliver them." Possidonius, however, when he discovered that both the letters and the exegetical writings of Nestorius had been presented to Celestine, was compelled to present those which he carried as well, as is attested by the report of Peter, Chief of the Notaries, an Alexandrian Presbyter, woven into vol. 2 of the Council of Ephesus in the edition of our Peltanus. The letter of Cyril to Celestine itself is found in vol. 1, ch. 39, in which, among other things, he prefaces as follows: "I have maintained a deep silence until now: for I wrote nothing at all about the one who at present administers the Church of Constantinople, either to your holiness or to any other of our fellow-priests; not being unaware that precipitate haste in such matters is usually attended with fault. But since we now seem to have reached almost the extremity of evils, I thought it worthwhile, breaking silence, to set forth in order everything that has happened."

[43] Celestine, having read the letters of Cyril and Nestorius and other writings sent back and forth on both sides, summoned Bishops to Rome and held a Council; in which, by the judgment of all, he is appointed the Pope's Vicar, both the blasphemy of Nestorius was condemned, with ten days granted him to come to his senses, and the vicarious authority of Celestine in pursuing the case of Nestorius was delegated to Cyril, by letters written to both on the 3rd of the Ides of August, under the consuls Theodosius XIII and Valentinian III Augustus, in the year of Christ 430. In these the Pontiff calls the doctrine of Cyril the present remedy by which that pestilent disease can be driven away as if by a saving antidote; the spring of a pure fountain, through which all the filth of the ill-flowing rivulet is removed, and all are instructed in the certain and true faith: he calls Cyril himself a good Pastor, who lays down his life for his sheep; a most valiant antagonist in keeping the faith, who uncovered the tricks of all the speeches of Nestorius and strengthened the faith in such a manner that hearts believing in Christ our God could not easily be led astray. And he is ordered to condemn Nestorius, unless he repent: And therefore he concludes with these words: "Wherefore, having assumed the authority of our See, and using our place and power as our representative, you shall execute a sentence not without exquisite severity: namely, that unless within a period of ten days, to be counted from the day of this our admonition, he shall anathematize his nefarious doctrine in express words, and shall pledge that he will hereafter confess that faith concerning the generation of Christ our God which both the Roman Church and the Church of your holiness and the entire Christian religion henceforth proclaim, your holiness shall forthwith provide for that Church. And let him understand that he is by all means separated from our body; he who, having spurned every care of the physicians, and having moreover raged through the entire body of the Church like a pestilent disease in an insane manner, has striven to precipitate both himself and all others committed to him into the utmost ruin." So writes Celestine to Cyril, and he repeats the same in his letter to Nestorius, which he concludes as follows: "We have transmitted the form of our judgment against you to S. Cyril, so that as our Vicar in this matter he may effect that our decree be made known both to you and to all the rest of the Brethren as well," etc.

[44] Cyril, having received letters from Pope Celestine, wrote to John of Antioch, Having held a synod, he sends to Nestorius: Juvenal of Jerusalem, and Acacius of Beroea, Bishops, whom he exhorted to take up arms in defense of the injured Catholic faith, and he himself led by his own example: having summoned the neighboring Bishops to Alexandria, he convened a synod and showed at length how great was the danger in which the entire Church stood. The synod, having examined the letters and exegetical writings of Nestorius, pronounced him a heretic: it appointed four legates -- Theopemptus, Bishop of Cabasum, Daniel, Bishop of Darnes, Potamon and Macarius, ministers of the Church of Alexandria -- who should proceed to Constantinople to deliver the letters of Celestine to Nestorius himself, together with the decree of condemnation, unless he should come to his senses within the prescribed period of ten days. A synodal letter was therefore sent to Nestorius, which contained a confession of the orthodox faith and anathematisms of twelve errors.

[45] He stirs up the Bishops and the Emperor against Cyril, as against a heretic. Nestorius, having received this letter and read the anathematisms, rising up against Cyril as their author, accused him of the heresy of Apollinaris, and then caused others to do the same. "A copy of whose letter," says Liberatus in his Breviarium on the case of Nestorius, ch. 4, "having reached John of Antioch, he was offended by the very chapters of Cyril; for he thought that he, while opposing Nestorius immoderately, had fallen into the sect of Apollinaris. He therefore commanded Andrew and Theodoret, Bishops of his council, to respond in writing against those twelve chapters as restoring the dogma of Apollinaris. Learning therefore that Cyril would not allow the Church to remain in such disturbances and the peoples in scandal, he insinuated himself with the pious Emperor Theodosius, so that he would direct a Sacred Edict to Cyril to restrain him from his persecution. And indeed the Emperor wrote a Sacred Edict to him, accusing him as being restless and pursuing scandals, one who acted and wrote without the agreement of his fellow-priests."

Section IX. The Council of Ephesus. The Nestorian heresy condemned.

[46] The Emperor Theodosius, judging that matters had reached the point where a universal Council was needed, sent S. Petronius to Rome (later created Bishop of Bologna, of whom we shall treat on the 4th of October) to Pope Celestine, so that a Council might be held at Ephesus by his authority, especially since not only Nestorius but also Cyril was accused of heresy. Bishops summoned to Ephesus; After this he wrote a Sacred Edict to all the Bishops to convene at Ephesus and confer about the books of Nestorius and examine the judgment of Cyril. So writes Liberatus, ch. 5. It is not our intention to set forth everything that was done here. The Acts of the Council are everywhere available and have been admirably discussed by Baronius at this year 431, who at no. 37, treating of the Bishops coming to the Synod, thus praises Cyril: Among whom Cyril was preeminent, "Among all, Cyril, preeminent by the prerogative of the first See after the Roman and by the vicarious prefecture of the first See itself, excelled above all other Bishops, and shone forth more and more both with the outstanding sanctity of his character and with his extraordinary knowledge of divine things." Certainly the Great Euthymius, as is read in his Life on the 20th of January, no. 55, when the Bishops of Palestine also were about to convene for the Synod, directed Bishop Peter of the Saracens to join himself to Cyril of Alexandria and Acacius of Melitene, Bishops, to profess that he assented to whatever seemed good to them. For, as is said at no. 54, Synodius had explained to him about Cyril of Alexandria and Acacius of Melitene, how they were showing an ardent and vehement zeal for the orthodox faith.

[47] That Celestine conceded his vicarious authority to Cyril, as indicated by the sending of the phrygium, or miter, Appointed the Pope's Vicar, with the phrygium sent to him, is stated by Theodore Balsamon in the Nomocanon of Photius, title 8, ch. 1. The Patriarch of Alexandria of this time also, by the present edict, has the right to celebrate with the phrygium. S. Cyril of Alexandria received this faculty from the Roman Pope Celestine when the Synod of Ephesus was held against Nestorius. Since Celestine could not be present at Ephesus and judge Nestorius, it seemed fitting that S. Cyril should be permitted by Celestine to preside over this Synod. Therefore, in order that it might be evident that he held the right and authority of the Pope, he sat with the phrygium and condemned Nestorius. Whence his successors used it thereafter; From that time, therefore, the Patriarchs of Alexandria sacrifice and process with the same phrygium, and do not fear to be reproved. Baronius, at the year of Christ 430, no. 26, interprets the phrygium as the pallium. Theodore wrote loron, which word Spondanus, at this year, teaches rather signifies the miter, interposing a learned explanation of the phrygium. Isidore, bk. 19 of the Etymologies, ch. 31: "The miter is a Phrygian cap, protecting the head." Nicephorus understood it in the same way, bk. 14, ch. 34, where he writes: "Celestine, Bishop of Rome, on account of the dangers of navigation, declined to be present at the synod himself: yet he wrote to Cyril to hold his place there. From which time the report is that he received the miter (in Greek, to tes mitras epithema), the appellation of Pope, and the title of judge of the entire world." From which Spondanus concludes that those ancient Eastern Bishops were by no means accustomed to using miters, and that the nomenclature of Pope was not common to them, as it was to the Westerners. Baronius considers that nothing was granted to Cyril by Celestine which is not customarily granted to those who are entrusted with vicarious authority or a legation a latere, and he denies that any example exists (that he at least knows of) of such power being transmitted to successors, not only in insignia but also in the usurpation of authority. The Bishops of the East -- Menas of Constantinople, Theodore of Caesarea in Cappadocia, And thus in him and other Legates, the Pope presided over the synod, Andrew of Ephesus, and very many others -- in the first profession of faith which they made at the church of S. Euphemia at Constantinople in the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, in the year of Christ 553, accept the four holy synods, and among them the First Council of Ephesus of two hundred Bishops, "in which in his Legates and Vicars, that is, the most blessed Cyril, Bishop of the city of Alexandria, Arcadius and Projectus the Bishops, and Philip the Presbyter, the most blessed Pope Celestine of Elder Rome is known to have presided."

[48] Nestorius had hastened to Ephesus immediately after the Easter festivities, accompanied by a great crowd of people. Cyril also arrived in pontifical attire and state around the solemnity of Pentecost, after which Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, arrived on the fourth day. While John of Antioch delays his arrival, In the end more than two hundred Bishops assembled with them. Only John of Antioch was awaited, with the Bishops of Syria, who, in order to accommodate Nestorius, delayed more than two weeks beyond the appointed day, and at last indicated to the Fathers through two of his Metropolitans that the Synod should not be further postponed. With the great consensus of the Bishops, therefore, it was decreed that the synod must begin. It was convened on the 22nd of June in the church of the most holy Mother of God: Cyril presided as Vicar of Pope Celestine: The synod begun: more than two hundred Bishops were present. The letters of the Emperor, by which he had summoned the Bishops to the Synod, were read. Nestorius cited in vain, Nestorius, cited for the third time, refused to appear: this being disregarded, they proceeded to the synodal adjudication: the Nicene Creed was publicly recited, together with the sermons, letters, petitions, and treatises of Nestorius: witnesses were produced concerning the blasphemies cast by him against Christ and the Virgin Mother of God: The case examined: the letters of Cyril to Nestorius, and of the latter to the former, were read.

[49] When all these things had been gravely and carefully weighed, Nestorius was deposed from the episcopate and the fellowship of the Priesthood by the most resolute sentence of the entire synod, fortified by the subscription of Cyril and all the other Bishops. It is thus reported in vol. 2, ch. 10: The holy synod said: Sentence of condemnation passed against him, "Since among other things the most religious Nestorius would neither obey our citation nor admit the most holy and religious Bishops again sent to him by us, we could not fail to turn our attention to the examination of his impious teachings. Having been instructed partly by his letters and treatises publicly read here, partly by the sermons which he delivered in this Metropolis of the Ephesians, and partly by trustworthy witnesses, that he teaches and thinks impiously, we are driven by the sacred Canons and the letters of our Father, the most holy Bishop Celestine of the Roman Church, with eyes filled with tears and almost reluctantly, to this mournful sentence. Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he assailed with his blasphemous words, decrees through this sacred Synod that the same Nestorius is entirely deprived of all Episcopal dignity, and is moreover estranged from the entire fellowship and assembly of the Priesthood."

[50] This sentence was immediately carried about the entire city by heralds in solemn procession and promulgated by publicly posted documents. The people of Ephesus, suffused with incredible joy, escorted the Bishops home with gleaming torches, Published. burned incense and perfumes before them as they passed, and received the condemnation of the impious Nestorius with the most favorable applause. On the following day Cyril delivered a sermon to the people of Ephesus in praise of the most holy Mother of God and attacked the blasphemies of Nestorius most sharply. Finally, synodal letters were written to the Emperor Theodosius and the Clergy of Constantinople.

Section X. New calumnies against Cyril. Imprisonment. Victory.

[51] While these things were being accomplished with the greatest joy of the orthodox, the heresiarch Nestorius renews the contest. The Counts favored him: Candidianus, appointed by the Emperor Theodosius to maintain public peace, and Irenaeus, who followed Nestorius out of the zeal of friendship. All roads were therefore blocked by these men, so that no letters of the Synod might be conveyed to the Emperor, by land or sea. Meanwhile John, Bishop of Antioch, and the other Eastern Bishops, summoned unwillingly to condemn Nestorius, their compatriot, arrived on the 27th of June, and having convened a tumultuous assembly, they rescind the Acts of the legitimate Synod, and condemn Cyril and Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus; John of Antioch condemns Cyril and others: Cyril, forsooth, because he had allegedly mixed heresies into his writings sent to Nestorius at Constantinople; Memnon, because he had promulgated the chapters of Cyril, had closed all the churches of Ephesus to Nestorius, and had done many other things against the canons: and they subject the remaining Bishops of the Ecumenical Synod to excommunication, until they should condemn the chapters of Cyril. Finally, notices are publicly posted, in which Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, is declared a heretic of the sect of Apollinaris, and it is announced that his heresy has been denounced to the Emperor.

[52] The Fathers of the Synod of Ephesus, moved by the indignity of these proceedings, having received the petitions which Cyril and Memnon had offered in defense of their innocence, warned John through three Bishops sent to him He himself is cited and condemned by the synod: to present himself before the Synod to give an account of his deed. He refused, trusting rather in the strength of the soldiers than in the equity of his cause. Wherefore the Synod punished John with his associates with anathema and deprivation of the episcopate, and declared that Cyril, Memnon, and the rest had been condemned against all right and divine law. Cyril, moreover, to show how far he was from ever having followed Apollinaris or any heretic, pronounced an anathema against the same Apollinaris and all other heresiarchs.

[53] Prosper testifies in his Chronicle at this year that the Pelagians were condemned together with Nestorius: The Pelagians also condemned there. "A Synod of more than two hundred Priests having been assembled at Ephesus, Nestorius is condemned together with the whole heresy of his name and with many Pelagians who were supporting a doctrine kindred to their own."

[54] Meanwhile the Emperor, deceived by the false report of the Easterners, approves not only the deposition of Nestorius, but also that of Cyril and Memnon, as though legitimately accomplished: The Emperor being deceived by the adversaries, he sends John, Count of the Sacred Treasury, from Constantinople to Ephesus, to be present at the synod for the sake of peace and concord, as is stated in vol. 3, ch. 15. When this man arrived at Ephesus, on the first day, having read the letters of the Emperor, he declared that Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon had been rightfully deposed: and to prevent greater dissensions from being stirred up, he confined each of them to their respective prison; and entrusted Nestorius to the custody of Count Candidianus, but Cyril and Memnon to Count Jacobus likewise, Cyril is cast into prison: as John himself indicates in the letters sent to Theodosius, vol. 3, appendix 2, ch. 1; in which and other letters he reported everything with such dishonesty that a plan was formed at Constantinople for the exile of Cyril, as though the sacred Synod had ratified his deposition; as Cyril himself attests in his letter to the Clergy and people of Constantinople, vol. 4, ch. 12, where, having exposed the frauds of Count John, he asks that they be made known to others, especially to the Archimandrites, all of whose aid and loyalty he earnestly implores, because the Synod is overwhelmed by the greatest miseries. And in ch. 18, to the Bishops staying at Constantinople, he writes of himself: "We are bound and kept in custody, utterly ignorant he writes to the Clergy of Constantinople; whither this matter will ultimately tend. But we give thanks to Christ that we are deemed worthy for His name not only to be bound in chains but also to suffer all other things: for these things will not be without their rewards... Let all the orthodox pray for us. For as the Blessed David says: I am prepared for the scourges." Ps. 37:18.

[55] With what constancy of mind and what unwearied zeal the orthodox Constantinopolitans acted before the Emperor is shown by the petition presented to him in vol. 4, ch. 16; in which, having taught that just laws of rulers must be obeyed, but that unjust sanctions of the same must be resisted with all one's strength, by which the Emperor was sharply admonished, they add that they prefer to endure anything whatsoever rather than to accept the unjust sentence of condemnation wickedly pronounced by the Easterners against Cyril and Memnon, and unjustly confirmed by the Emperors. Finally they conclude with these words: "Since, therefore, Nestorius was justly deposed on account of his impiety, but Cyril and Memnon, the most holy and most pious Bishops, have been unworthily and unjustly punished with the same penalty based on a wicked suggestion; it is fitting, Christ-loving Kings, that you take diligent care lest the Church of God, which like a nurse fosters your piety and readily procures victory over your enemies for your majesty without great difficulty, be hereafter ruined; and that the age of the Martyrs not return again in the time of your reign; but rather that you should devote yourselves to this: namely, that you arouse in your hearts more and more the love and zeal of your forefathers toward the Churches of God. Just as each of them obeyed the Synods of the holy Fathers celebrated in the time of their reign, and fortified the decrees of the Fathers with their laws, and showed by their decrees what deference they paid to them, so also do you declare the appropriate affection toward the holy Synod which you have ordered to convene: that it may offer pious thanksgivings for the safety of your reign, and that we too may send devoted prayers to Christ the Lord for the stability of your kingdom."

[56] The Emperor, roused by that most forceful petition of the orthodox, and moved by the news of the loss of the army in Africa, and also wearied by the prayers of his sister, S. Pulcheria, at last adopted sounder counsels: He summons some from each party: he ordered seven Bishops from each side to be sent from Ephesus to Constantinople. When only the orthodox were admitted and heard in the royal city, he entirely abolished the Acts against Cyril, Memnon, and the whole Synod. He rejects the convicted adversaries of Cyril. But led by the manifold petitions of the factious, he also admitted them into the city, and they having confronted the orthodox five times in his presence, and after many disputations about the twelve anathematisms of Cyril and other such matters, having been convicted of impiety, he commanded them to return to their own homes. And this was the end at last of the seditious machinations of the heretics and schismatics. And, as S. Prosper testifies against the Collator near the end, all the Eastern Churches were freed from a twofold pestilence, when Celestine aided Cyril, Bishop of the city of Alexandria, the most glorious defender of the Catholic faith, with the Apostolic sword for the execration of the Nestorian impiety, by which the Pelagians also, while they allied themselves with kindred errors, were again laid low.

[57] Nestorius, relegated for the time being to his former monastery of S. Euprepius near Antioch, Exile and death of Nestorius, in case he might perhaps repent, infected many with the contagion of his error. Wherefore he was banished to the solitary Oasis of Libya, and there afterwards, his tongue being consumed by worms, he met a wretched end of life; his books having been consumed by fire by edict of Theodosius. Maximian the Presbyter was appointed to the See of Constantinople in his place, and he wrote to Cyril the following letter, found in vol. 4 of the Council of Ephesus, ch. 24: "Your desire has been fulfilled, O most devout of God: His successor Maximian congratulates Cyril, what you had undertaken for the sake of religion has been accomplished: the vow of your piety has been brought to its end: you have been made a spectacle to Angels and men and to all the Priests of Christ: for not only did you believe in Christ, but you also endured hardships for His sake. You alone were deemed worthy to bear His marks in your body. Having confessed Him before men, you have merited that the Father should confess you before the Angels. You are crowned with the crowns which are owed to those who fight for piety; you were able to do all things in Christ who strengthened you; you humbled Satan by your patience; you despised the torments; you trampled upon the fury of Princes; you counted hunger as nothing: for you had the bread which, descending from heaven, imparts heavenly life to men."

[58] "Since indeed we were not ignorant of any of these things (for some of your afflictions, which you endured while resisting principalities and powers and the rulers of this world and the rectors of the darkness of this age and the spirits of wickedness, we learned by hearing; while others we learned with the certain credibility of experience while stationed here), and since moreover we have been promoted to the Archiepiscopate of this great city; And he implores his prayers and counsels. deign, O most beloved of God, to support us with your prayers, to direct us with your counsels, and to pursue us with every zeal of benevolence; so that in this manner the saying of Scripture may be fulfilled in us: 'A brother who is helped by a brother is like a fortified city.' Prov. 18:19. For truly spiritual love is a fortified city, which can neither be undermined by the devil's tunnels nor scaled by his ladders. For it does not know how to yield to the warlike engines of Satan, since it is guarded by Christ the Lord -- by that very Christ who both conquered this world and prepared everlasting blessings for you and yet also said: 'He who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.' Matt. 10:38. Since, therefore, you have become worthy of Christ the Lord, because you have taken up your cross and become His follower; do not fail to pray to Christ on our behalf, counting the ornaments of fraternal virtue as your own prerogatives. Farewell in the Lord, and pray for me, O brother and fellow-minister most beloved of God and most holy."

[59] Pope Celestine celebrates the same Cyril with no lesser praise in his letter to the Clergy of Constantinople, published from a Vatican codex by Baronius at the year of Christ 432, where at no. 24 the following is found: The same Cyril praised by Pope Celestine. "You have avoided him whom, by the memory-worthy sentence of the holy Church of Alexandria, you already knew, according to the judgment of the Blessed Apostle Paul, to be corrected. For you have read and now hold in memory the writings of the Priest, that is, of the Catholic Doctor addressed to him, by which he *strove to recall his tottering colleague, now so corrupted that he wished to be corrected; he extended to him the right hand of his magisterial office, wishing by one act to aid many: the heart of the veteran Priest was pierced by the fact that a Bishop was tottering with the ruin of many. 1 Cor. 5. He acted, as it is written: 'I will bless the work of the Lord diligently.' The Apostolic man was wanting in no office of the Apostle: he besought, he admonished, he rebuked. But that man, who was sinking into the depths under the weight of his blasphemies, rejecting the doctrine of so great a man and abusing his exhortation, refused to be docile, since he could not be a teacher: he acted injuriously, while the assertor of perversity boasted that a steadfast man of right was such. Hence the Brother was not saddened, reflecting with himself that he deservedly did not spare his fellow-servant who was derogating from his Lord. He has been found to be, through diligence, that frugal son and prudent servant of the Gospel; for he both preserved the paternal substance and increased the number of talents. Nor would I say that he merely doubled, but multiplied his portion, whom we saw assisting even those placed far away with pious interest. O the usury of holy preaching! What grace will this dealer of faith find before the common Lord, who exercised his trade for the profit of souls even there where he received the talents? Will he not deservedly hear from the head of the household: 'Well done, good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord'? These words befit him who also preserved the things entrusted to others." So writes Celestine.

Side Note: Some error here.

Section XI. Reconciliation of the Churches.

[60] After the death of Pope Celestine on the 8th of the Ides of April, Sixtus III succeeded, with whom at last also John of Antioch made peace with S. Cyril, by the letters (with a sincere profession of the Catholic faith) which are found in vol. 5 of the Council of Ephesus, chs. 5 and 17. The exact sequence of events is set forth by Cyril himself in his letter to Dynatus, Bishop of Nicopolis of Old Epirus, vol. 5, ch. 16, which we give here: The Antiochene and other Easterners, "I thought it worthwhile to inform your piety about the things which have occurred concerning the establishment of peace among the Churches. And so my lord, the most distinguished Tribune and Notary Aristolaus, came to Antioch, (with Aristolaus the Tribune urging them, bearing royal letters, by which John, the most pious Bishop of the Church of Antioch, was ordered to anathematize the wicked doctrines of Nestorius, and at the same time to pronounce with the sacred Synod a sentence of deposition against him, and in that way to make his way to our communion. And this was the substance of those letters."

[61] "But certain of the Eastern Bishops, who perhaps have not yet condemned Nestorius, but continue to favor him and to disturb the right faith, [With Cyril urging, though he is petitioned, albeit in vain, by them to retract his writings;] nor do they acknowledge the glory of Christ, the Savior of us all, instigated Acacius, the most holy and pious Bishop of Beroea, to write to me and to propose certain absurdities which they demanded. For he urged that, all the things we had written against Nestorius being abolished and rejected as useless, we should accept only the Creed set forth by the holy Fathers assembled in the city of Nicaea. Your holiness remembers that they urged this same thing even when they were still present in the city of the Ephesians. But I wrote back to them that they were demanding a thing which was plainly impossible, since whatever we had written we had written rightly; inasmuch as we had everywhere agreed with the right and blameless faith, and could on that account neither condemn nor deny anything of all that had been written by us. For nothing at all has been rashly said or written by me, as those men say, but only those things have been said and written by me which everywhere agree with the rightness of faith and are in all respects consonant with the truth. I added, moreover, that they would do better if, setting aside those evasions and delays which they employed, and containing themselves within the limits of the right and necessary, they would acquiesce in the wishes of the most pious and God-beloved Emperor, and in the decrees of the sacred Synod; and anathematize the trifles of Nestorius and his blasphemous words against Christ; and acknowledge his deposition to be just; and at last subscribe to the ordination of the most holy and most pious Bishop Maximian."

[62] "When, therefore, I had sent these letters to them, perceiving that they would by no means obtain communion unless they first did what they ought to do, they sent to Alexandria Paul, the most pious and religious Bishop of Emesa, Paul the Bishop being sent to him, bringing things pertaining to the restoration of communion, yet proposed with too little seemliness and propriety: for they pretended to have certain just complaints against us, on the ground that certain things had been neither rightly said nor rightly done by the sacred Council. But I did not accept letters of that kind, and said: 'When they ought to humbly beg pardon for their former deeds, they hasten to heap new insults.' When, however, the aforesaid most pious Bishop excused the deed and affirmed by oath that this was not their intention, but that they had inserted this into their letters out of mere simplicity of mind, I accepted the explanation for the sake of charity."

[63] "However, I did not receive him to the synaxis before he had offered a petition in which he anathematized the doctrines of Nestorius in his own handwriting; and had publicly confessed that he held him as deposed; and had finally assented to the ordination of the most religious Bishop Maximian. He then asked that, the petitions of all the Eastern Bishops being presented and received in his place, I should demand nothing further. But I by no means allowed this to be done; instead I sent a document to my lord, the most distinguished Tribune and Notary, subscribing to the condemnation of Nestorius, they are reconciled to the Church, by which I signified to him: 'If John, the most pious Bishop of the Church of Antioch, subscribes to this, then and only then restore communion to them'; for the illustrious Tribune Aristolaus was bearing their delay with difficulty. When, therefore, the most pious John had subscribed, and the others who held greater authority with him had anathematized the doctrine of Nestorius and professed that they held him as deposed, and had approved the ordination of the most religious and most pious Bishop Maximian, we restored communion to them. For these things alone were demanded of them by the sacred Synod while they were still at Ephesus."

[64] Paul, having successfully accomplished his mission, returned to John of Antioch and the others by whom he had been sent to Cyril, bringing with him a letter to John himself, Cyril congratulates them: by which peace and tranquillity were restored to the Church. This is the opening of that letter, in ch. 6 of vol. 4: "Let the heavens rejoice and let the earth be glad: for the dividing wall has been broken down; that which was bringing grief has been stilled; and every kind of dissension has at last been removed; Christ, the Savior of us all, having reconciled peace for His Churches, and the most religious and God-beloved Emperors urging us to this. Who, being the best emulators of ancestral piety, take care to keep the right faith, fixed in their minds, firm and immovable. Indeed, they also bestow a singular care upon the holy Churches, so that from this they may both obtain perpetual glory and establish their kingdom in the most flourishing state."

[65] What happened after the return of Paul is narrated by Liberatus in his Breviarium, chs. 8 and 9: "Paul therefore, going up to Antioch, presented to Archbishop John and his entire Council the letter of Cyril. Who, when they learned that he had accepted the faith sent by them and had written in confirmation of it, made peace with him and his Council, condemning Nestorius and accepting Maximian, who had been made Bishop in his place; although some of them still hesitated to communicate with Cyril, thinking that he had erred and afterwards recognized the truth, and blaming John for not demanding from him the condemnation of his chapters. On the other hand, certain persons at the Palace, through Eulogius the Presbyter and Apocrisiarius of the Church of Alexandria, blamed Cyril, He teaches others that two natures in Christ must be confessed: for having accepted from the Eastern Bishops the confession of two natures, which Nestorius had said and taught. But to Valerian, Bishop of Iconium, and Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, this same thing concerning Cyril seemed true. Cyril therefore wrote to them in defense of the Eastern Bishops and in support of the two natures of the one Christ... Writing to Acacius, Bishop of Melitene, he says among other things: 'For Nestorius says that Christ is named separately from God the Word, but that He has a continuous conjunction with Christ. Do you think, then, that he does not most openly speak of two Christs? But the Easterners confess that they adore one Christ and Son and God and Lord, the same from the Father according to His Divinity, and the same from the holy Virgin according to His Humanity. For they say that a union of two natures was made; yet they openly confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord who has been made,' etc."

[66] Liberatus continues: "These are the things which Cyril wrote in defense of the Eastern Bishops, in support of the two natures of the one Christ. Those who at that time refused to accept this, I believe to be the originators of the Acephali, who have neither Cyril as their head nor show whom they follow. Then also Euoptius, Bishop of Ptolemais in the region of the Pentapolis, receiving a copy of the letters of Theodoret, He expounds his twelve chapters, who had written against the twelve chapters of Cyril, sent it to Cyril, so that he might respond to them and expound his chapters. Cyril, receiving this most gratefully, made an interpretation of his chapters, adding twelve expositions, so that he might appear to render a full account of them. And so, with Cyril accepting and defending the faith of the Eastern Bishops, and expounding his own chapters, peace and unity were restored to the Churches. In which peace, as the Church rejoiced, the enemy of peace, the rival of unity, did not cease to move his vessels against her and to sow tares"--which arose on account of the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus. These, since they scarcely pertain to S. Cyril, we omit in this place; especially since the history of Liberatus the Deacon does not everywhere deserve credence, for he stubbornly undertook, together with other Africans, to defend the three chapters--concerning the writings of the Mopsuestene, the letter of Ibas, and the commentaries of Theodoret against Cyril--already condemned also by the Roman Pontiff; and he incautiously accepted what he narrates from a letter fabricated by some Nestorian under the name of Cyril to John of Antioch. Photius, however, followed him in his Library, section 227.

[67] For how shall we believe that Theodore was praised by Cyril, and his writings approved, as the same Liberatus writes, when he so opposed Nestorius, whom he himself testifies had drawn his errors from that very Theodore, in his letter to John, Bishop of Antioch? "Pretending," he says, "to hate the things of Nestorius, he condemns the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia: they introduce them again in another way, admiring the things of Theodore, and certainly containing an equal, or rather a much worse, disease of impiety. For Theodore was not the disciple of Nestorius, but the latter of the former, and they speak as with one mouth, and vomit forth one poison of evil doctrine from their heart." In his letter to the Emperor Theodosius, he asserts that Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus were the fathers of impiety for Nestorius, and that they blasphemed monstrously against Christ the Savior of us all, not knowing His mystery, etc. All these things are reported in collation 5 of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Finally, he shows in his exposition of the Nicene Creed near the end that both were authors of the same heresy. Where he also mentions the letter of Proclus written to the Armenians on this matter: "This the most Christ-loving chorus of the holy Fathers thinks with us," he says, "and Proclus himself, the most religious and most pious Father and Co-bishop, who now adorns the throne of the holy Church of Constantinople. For he himself also wrote to the most pious Eastern Bishops in these words: 'And was incarnate indeed,' etc." That letter survives in the Library of the Fathers, translated into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus, on the occasion of the same controversy again revived in his time on account of the three chapters of the Council of Chalcedon, which the Church at last rescinded, one of which concerned the writings of the same Theodore. Proclus had succeeded the deceased Maximian under the consuls Aspar and Areobindas, in the year of Christ 434; in whose Life on the 24th of October more will be said about this controversy.

[68] Cyril's having resisted by Apostolic authority Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, who was seeking the primacy of Palestine (which was indeed eventually conferred upon that See), is recorded by S. Leo the Pope in epistle 62 to Maximus, Bishop of Antioch: He resists the Bishop of Jerusalem. "At the Synod of Ephesus," he says, "Bishop Juvenal believed he could obtain the primacy of the province of Palestine, and attempted to confirm his insolent daring with forged documents: which Cyril of holy memory, rightly abhorring, informed me by his letters of what that aforesaid ambition had dared; and with anxious entreaty he urgently requested that no assent be given to unlawful attempts."

[69] The writings of Cyril. The books written by S. Cyril, as many as could be found, after various editions were published in Greek and Latin at Paris in the year 1638, arranged in seven volumes. Which of these should be considered his genuine productions, Bellarmine in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers and others have rendered judgment. Photius discusses the style of his works and his characteristic mode of expression in his Library, sections 49, 136, and 169. The book entitled Moral Apologues is not by this Cyril; this was published by our Balthasar Corderius in 1631 from an ancient codex of the Library of Matthias Corvinus, thinking it previously unpublished: although Aubert Le Mire, in his recently published Bibliotheca, notes at ch. 57 of Gennadius that it had long since been published by Jean Petit under the title Mirror of Wisdom. Of the author of that booklet, Cyril, we shall treat on the 9th of March. Moreover, the doctrine of this our Cyril of Alexandria was reverently received and praised by the holy Fathers. The Great Euthymius, as is stated on the 20th of January in his Life at no. 75, rejected calumnies against the Council of Chalcedon, adducing among other reasons this one: "The Synod associates to itself Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, His doctrine everywhere praised by the Holy Fathers, as being of the same mind; and acknowledges him to be a Master of right doctrine: he names the holy Virgin, Mother of God, with free speech, and asserts that the only-begotten Son of God was born of her." These things are found in session 1 of the Council of Chalcedon; for when the letter of Cyril of holy memory was read, the most reverend Bishops of Illyricum cried out: "So we believe, as also Cyril. Eternal be the memory of Cyril!" And shortly after: "All the most reverend Bishops cried out: We believe as Cyril; so we believe, so we believe: anathema to him who does not so believe." Similar expressions are repeated most frequently in the same proceedings, changed only in phrasing, by individual Bishops in favor of Flavian, who had succeeded Proclus in the episcopate of Constantinople and had condemned the error of Eutyches. We conclude with the single judgment of Sabba, Bishop of Palta: "We have learned," he says, "to follow the holy Fathers. For our Fathers who assembled at Nicaea did not speak from themselves, but what the Holy Spirit dictated. Similarly also the most holy and most God-loving Blessed Cyril, from the Holy Spirit, spoke and taught the things of the holy Fathers." Finally, his doctrine, examined with careful scrutiny by one hundred and sixty-five Bishops at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, was celebrated with the most distinguished encomiums. Concerning his death and his solemn veneration in the Eastern and Western Church, we treated above in section I.