THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
themselves in agreement with ApoUinaris against every theory that denied the substantial unity of the incarnate Redeemer with the sec- Significance ond person of the Trinity. Looking for at the personality of the Redeemer, Doctrine, the energetic assertion of the unity of the person resulted from it indeed, but also a reckless neglect of the individual man in him. The God-Logos remained, with the human nature which he has assumed, the same one inseparable subject which he was before. The " pliy/'.ral union " is " not confounded," though both natures are to be distinguished " in theory alone." The attacks to which this view was exposed on both sides Cyril could only meet by giving to the idea of " nature " a meaning which disregards everything individual. In this way alone does the assertion become explicable that before the incarnation two natures existed, the divine and the human, but after the incarnation only one, the definite divine-human nature, or, as Cyril expressed it in the words of the creed regarded by him as Athanasian, but in reality composed by the hated ApoUinaris, " one nature of God the Logos made flesh." The nature is here only thought of as " common." Christ is no man like Paul and Peter; he is the author of a new humanity. Nevertheless, CyrU makes all dependent on the Redeemer's assuming the perfect human nature. But Cyril's assertions do not help over the contradiction that this Redeemer in spite of his "rational soul" had no free will, but was " inflexible in mind." They are, indeed, not intended for that, because by his use of the idea of nature Cyril did not need to take exception to the "perfect man," like ApoUinaris. He could speak the easier in favor of a mutual communication of the properties of the divine and human nature in the Redeemer (conimunicatio idiomatum) , and thus avoid the danger of a fusion at least for his belief. The " in two natures " of the Chalcedonian formula of 451 found no support in CyrU's Christology. But his Christology overcame that formula, for the Byzantine theologians who had to interpret it did so by explaining the doctrine of the two natures according to Cyril's teaching of one nature (see Leontius of Byzantium; MoNOPHYSiTEs). G. Krtjger.
Bibliography: The Opera of Cyril, ed. J. Aubert, appeared in 7 vols., Paris, 1638, new ed., 1737, reproduced in MPG, Ixviii.-lxxvii. An edition of the fragments of the commentary on Luke from the Syriac by R. P. Smith was issued Oxford, 1859, Eng. transl., 2 vols., 1859, and of the same from another MS., by W. Wright, London, 1874; P. E. Pusey edited the commentary on the twelve minor prophets, 2 vols., Oxford, 1868, a selection of the theological works, 2 vols., ib. 1875-77, transl. of the commentary on St. John, ib. 1838, and a text and transl. of the Three Epistles, ib. 1872. The commentary on John in Eng. transl. was published anonymously, 2 vols., London, 1874-85. On the life of Cyril consult: ASB, Jan., ii. 84:!-854; Abb^ Rambouillet, Le Pape Pelage I., S. Cyrille . et I'infallibilite, Paris, 1870; A. Largent, in Revue des questions historiques, xii (1872), 5-70; J. Kopallik, Cyrillus von Alexandrien, Mainz, 1881; A. Rohrmann, Die ChrisMuqie des heiligen Cyrill von Alexandrien, Heidelberg, 1902; E.WeinI, Die H eilslehre des heiligen Cyrill von Alexandrien, Mainz, 1905; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 942-949. Bibliographies are found in S. F. W. Hoffmann, Bihliographisches Lexikon, i. 484-494, Leipsic, 1838; U. Chevalier, Repertuire des sources historiques, pp. 533-534 2588, Paris, 1877-88.
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM : A distinguished theologian of the early Church; d. 386. Little is known of his life before he became bish .p; the assignment of the year 316 for his birth rests on mere conjecture. He seems to have been ordained deacon by Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem about 335, and priest some ten years later by Maximus. Naturally inclined to peace and conciliation, he
Life and took at first a rather moderate posi- Character. tion, distinctly averse from Arianism, but (like not a few of his undoubtedly orthodox contemporaries) by no means eager to accept the uncompromising term homoousios. Separating from his metropolitan, Acacius of Csesarea (q.v.), a partizan of Arius, Cyril took the side of the Eusebians, the " right wing " of the post-Nicene conciliation party, and thus got into difficulties with his superior, which were increased by Acacius's jealousy of the importance assigned to CyrU's see by the Council of Nicaca. A council held under Acacius's influence in 358 deposed Cyril and forced him to retire to Tarsus. On the other hand, the concUiatory CouncU of Seleucia in the following year, at which Cyril was present, deposed Acacius. In 360 the process was reversed through the metropolitan's court influence, and CyrU suffered another year's exUe from Jerusalem, untU Julian's accession allowed him to return. The Arian emperor Valens banished him once more in 367, after which he remained undisturbed untU his death, his jurisdiction being expressly confirmed by the Second Council of Niceea (381), at which he was present.
Though his theology was at first somewhat indefinite in phraseology, he undoubtedly gave a thorough adhesion to the Nicene orthodoxy. Even if he does avoid the debatable term homoousios, he expresses its sense in many passages, which exclude equally Patripassianism, Sabellianism, and the Arian formula " There was a time when the Son was not." In other points he takes the ordinary ground of the Eastern Fathers, as in the emphasis he lays on the freedom of the will, the autexousion, and his imperfect realization of the Theological factor so much more strongly brought
Position, out in the West — sin. To him sin is the consequence of freedom, not a natural condition. The body is not the cause, but the instrument of sin. The remedy for it is repentance, on which he insists. Like many of the Eastern Fathers, he has an essentially moralistic conception of Christianity. His doctrine of the Resurrection is not quite so realistic as that of other Fathers; but his conception of the Church is decidedly empirical — the existing catholic Church form is the true one, intended by Christ, the completion of the Church of the Old Testament. His doctrine on the Eucharist is noteworthy. If he sometimes seems to approach the symbolical view, at other times he comes very close to a strong realistic doctrine. The bread and wine are not mere elements, but the body and blood of Christ.
His famous twenty-three catechetical lectures (Gk. Katecheseis), which he delivered whUe stUl a presbyter in 347 or 348, contain instructions on the principal topics of Christian faith and practise,