The Historical Situation
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
Caesarean, the text is Neutral rather than Western. Agreement with the Palestinian Syriac is erratic; it is very high in quotations from John. Cyril's quotations are often allusive and he shows the ordinary patristic tendency, already apparent in the manuscripts of the Gospels themselves, to conftate and harmonize variations between the Gospels. Examples will be found at 15.23 (Luke 17.34=Mt. 24.40) and Homily 5, where
Cyril conftates Matthew's two stories (9.27-28 and 20.30-32) of the healing of two blind men.
3. The Historical Situation Little is known for certainl about Cyril except that he was bishop of the Holy City from ca. early 349 to 18 March 387,2 was several times deposed and banished, for many a long year resisted the Nicene definition of the "consubstantial," attended the First Council of Constantinople in 381, and is the author of the first of the two series of Catechetical Lectures traditionally associated with his name. The ancient historians mention Cyril as seldom as do modern Church historians, and their references to him are often as obscure and misleading as they are rare. Moreover, by the fourth decade of the fifth century Church history had already been byzantinized;
Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret had little understanding even of the Problematik of the great Arian controversy, and they are particularly uninstructive just in those areas and at those moments which touch Cyril. St. Jerome, who had excellent sources of information, was blinded by his Western partiality and was particularly embittered against Cyril. The narrowly orthodox St. Epiphanius must likewise have been well informed, but his references to Cyril are also few, brief
1 Cf. Telfer, General Introduction, first sentence. But Telfer has himself solved some of the problems.
2 For the year of his death, cf. P. Nautin, "La date du De viris illustribus," Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique 56 (1961) 33-35.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
and somewhat obscure. Again, though belonging to a camp embattled against the strict Nicaeans, Cyril never mentions
Athanasius, nor Athanasius him.
It is, of course, possible that the explanation of the early historians' near-silence about Cyril is that he played no considerable part in the great theological struggle. But there are some signs-the animosity of the strict Nicaeans against him is one-that from Cyril a powerful influence radiated. It must be remembered that the key-words and formulas about which our Fathers quarrelled in the fourth century were obscure and ambiguous, and most of those who resisted the "consubstantial" resisted it for the most edifying reasons. Referring to the struggle between Homoousians and Homoeousians (the "moderate" or "semi-Arian" party) Socrates, in a moment of insight, or perhaps quoting a perceptive acquaintance, remarked: "It was like a battle in the dark, with both sides shooting at shadows."3 Similarly Athanasius spoke of the moderate party as "those who hold the same doctrines as we do, and differ from us only about a word."4 Wolfson has described the position well by saying that when heresy was introduced by Arius, the variety and inconsistency of Trinitarian terminology led to a "war of suspicion" among the orthodox.5
Jerusalem and Caesarea The story both of Cyril's life and of the Arian controversy in Palestine is in a considerable degree the story of a conflict between Jerusalem and Caesarea. It is, therefore, impossible to interpret Cyril's life correctly without some picture of the relationship existing between Jerusalem and Caesarea, the capital (metropolis) of the Roman province of Palestine and,
3 Socrates, Hist. eccles. 1.23.
4 De synodis 41.
5 H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers I (Cambridge, Mass. 1956) Ch. 15, sect. iii (p.337).
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
from the time when ecclesiastical administration based on the unit of the Roman province developed, the metropolitan church of at least most of Palestine. The ordinary, or at least majority, view is that Jerusalem had "always" (i.e., really from ca. 135) been subject to Caesarea6 and that the seventh canon of Nicaea merely reasserted this position, while also confirming to Jerusalem certain unspecified honorary ancient privileges, so that Jerusalem had no reason to be discontented with the canon. The canon reads:
Let the bishop of Aelia [Jerusalem] keep his honorary precedency, warranted as it is by custom and ancient tradition, without prejudice to the proper dignity of the metropolitan see.
This conception of the situation needs, I believe, a slight but important adjustment. I believe that although Caesarea may have gained a widely acknowledged metropolitan jurisdiction over Jerusalem in the twilight period comprising the fifty years before Nicaea, Jerusalem would not have gladly acquiesced in this situation nor have gladly accepted the Nicene canon confirming it. It is unlikely that the canon resulted from an amicable arrangement between the two bishops concerned; for Eusebius of Caesarea and Macarius were champions of opposing theological views before and at the Council. While Eusebius came to Nicaea under a provisional sentence of excommunication for his Arian sym6 Cf. F. Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium (Cambridge,
Mass. 1958) 21-23. So also S. Vailhe, "Formation du Patriarcat de Jerusalem," Echos d'Orient 13 (1910) 325-336, held that Jerusalem had always been suffragan to Caesarea, that ca. 196 her apostolicity won her second place in the province and that so the position remained until Nicaea when it was confirmed by the seventh canon.
Vailhe allowed a good deal of prestige to Jerusalem, but based this on a distinction between "honor" and jurisdiction" and between the bishop and the see. I suspect that the seventh canon may have created some such distinctions but that they would have been anachronistic before the late third century. W. Telfer and F. L. Cross (op. cit., n. on pp. xv-xvi) are in substantial agreement with Dvornik.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
pathies, Macarius was one of the three "theological ignoramuses" whom Arius listed as his chief enemies.7
I suggest that the position of Jerusalem was not that of the first satellite of Caesarea, but of a second sun in Palestine; that Jerusalem was virtually a second, smaller metropolitan church in the south of Palestine. Not only did Constantinople
I in 381 call Jerusalem "the mother of all the churches," as also did the Apostolic Constitutions) but Origen called Jerusalem a metropolis.s Probably while Jerusalem may have been theoretically suffragan to Caesarea, she enjoyed not merely prestige but genuinely substantial privileges giving her a great deal of independent authority; she probably, though the evidence is not decisive, governed a ring of suburban and outlying churches around Jerusalem. Probably F. J. A. Hort appraised the situation accurately (if we give full force to the word "balanced") when he wrote: "All Palestine was subject to the supremacy of Antioch; and the metropolitan jurisdiction of Caesarea over the rest of Palestine was balanced by privileges peculiar to Jerusalem."9 In particular Jerusalem appears to have enjoyed the very important privilege of special rights in determining the episcopal succession on the death of her own bishop and probably also in neighboring sees.
Normally election was by the comprovincial bishops, although in early times the local people and clergy had a powerful voice. There was a gradual trend towards the transference of the power of election to the comprovincials and especially to the metropolitan, a trend consolidated by the fourth, and perhaps also by the sixth, canon of Nicaea. But it looks as if Jerusalem, like Rome and Alexandria,lo had retained the 7 Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia preserved in Epiphanius.
Panarion 69.6; also in Theodoret. Hist. eccles. 1.5.1-4. A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church (2nd ed., New York
1862) 260. suggested that the seventh canon reflected a "passage of arms" between Eusebius and Macarius. and he was probably right.
8 Origen. Fr. 58 in Ierem. (GCS, Orig. 3.277.11; PG 13.584A).
9 Hort. Two Dissertations 59.
10 At Alexandria St. Athanasius appointed his own successor before his death in 373.
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
rights of the local church in this matter, just as these were the three great churches in which government was originally collegiate.
While in general the rank of sees was determined by the place of the cathedral city in the imperial administrative divisions rather than by apostolicity (in the East apostolic sees were two-a-penny), the church of Jerusalem-the church of all the apostles, the church created by the Holy Spirit and situated in the city where the decisive events of salvation history had taken place-was unique; and Telfer has argued impressively that the disasters of 68-70 and 134-5 had not destroyed the continuity of the Jerusalem tradition. In any case the New Testament was an abiding witness to the glories of the church of Jerusalem.
While it is well known that both of Cyril's immediate predecessors had attempted, one successfully and one unsuccessfully, to appoint their successors without reference to Caesarea, the evidence of the Church History of Eusebius suggests that these events were not simply the result of the theological quarrel between the two churches at this time but reflected a long-standing claim on the part of Jerusalem.
Eusebius' pages show Jerusalem behaving, especially in the matter of episcopal elections, in a high-handed way, flouting the customs by which other churches were bound and breaking more or less widely acknowledged rules. Eusebius also gives the impression that Caesarea and Jerusalem were a pair of approximately equally distinguished churches in Palestine.
The story of bishop Narcissusp though he is no doubt largely a legendary figure, is suggestive. Said to have been 116 years of age in 216, he may have become bishop before the middle of the second century. His holiness made him enemies and he disappeared into the desert. "The neighboring
(homoroi)12 churches" ordained Dius in his place. Dius was 11 Eusebius. Rist. eccles. 5.12; 6.9-11.
12 If homoros ("marching with," "having common boundaries") is used strictly, it would refer not to Caesarea but to suburban parish churches and the dioceses in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. Similarly
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
succeeded by Cermanio, who was succeeded by Cordius, during whose episcopate Narcissus reappeared and was immediately besought by "the brethren" to accept the episcopate.
Unless Cordius died, he presumably either retired into the ranks of the presbyters, like Cyril's rival Heraclius later, or acted as auxiliary. For a see to have two bishops was a grave violation of Church law, and for a bishop to have an auxiliary was probably felt to savor also of ambition and aggrandizement. Narcissus may even have had two auxiliaries for a time, for Eusebius' account represents Alexander's arrival and election by acclamation (ca. 212) as occurring immediately afterwards. Alexander certainly, according to Eusebius' account, acted as Narcissus' coadjutor,13 and his election also broke the rule against translations. Eusebius says that in ordaining
Alexander, Jerusalem acted "with the unanimous consent of the neighbouring (perix) churches." Which are "the neighbouring churches"?14 Perhaps Narcissus did consult Caesarea, the comprovincial bishops, and Antioch, beforehand; but could they have dispensed with canon law? when (7.28), listing the illustrious bishops ca. 266, Eusebius uses the word again, speaking of "Hymenaeus of the church of Jerusalem and Theotecnus of the neighboring church of Caesarea," he is using the word accurately only if the reference is to two metropolitans whose provinces march together. Of course, in the former instance the word could precisely refer to Caesarea if the reference were to provinces.
13 Eusebius, Hist. eccles. 6.11.
14 For perix d. Acts 5.16. Eusebius seems not to use the word eparchia (province) much. Perhaps it is an anachronism to read back the Nicene organization into pre·Nicene times, when law and custom were hardly distinguished. The organization by provinces originated as a de facto inevitable arrangement, gradually crystallized and became formally recognized. Then Jerusalem, the one church whose position was not based on its cathedral city being a capital. was left high and dry, as the Nicene canon mentioned but did not specify its traditional rightsindeed referred only to "honor" (time). I believe that the seventh canon was a blow to Jerusalem. Macarius may have asked for a special canon-he would have been forced to after canon 4-but the effective part of the canon is clearly the final saving clause. For it is likely that the traditional privileges of Jerusalem had meant that Caesarea had not enjoyed (at least full) metropolitan rights in her regard, and consequently Jerusalem's traditional privileges were annulled by the clause which "saved" Caesarea's metropolitan authority in her regard.
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
Eusebius' account of the Origen episode would lead one to suppose that Jerusalem and Caesarea enjoyed equal eminence and authority. In concert their two bishops acted with marked independence of ecclesiastical rules. When in 216
Origen came to Palestine and stayed in Caesarea, "the bishops of the country" invited him to preach, although Origen's own bishop, Demetrius of Alexandria, thought this highly irregular as Origen was not a presbyter. When Demetrius protested, "Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea" (the second time we have seen Eusebius name the sees in that order) wrote defending their action. When in 229 or 230 Origen again arrived in Palestine, "the bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem, the most eminent in Palestine" ordained him in Caesarea, where he continued to reside for the rest of his life. "Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea used to hang on his lips" and Firmilianus came from Cappadocia and "visited him in Judaea [SiC]."15 In one of his periodical lists of illustrious bishops Eusebius16 mentions Theophilus of Caesarea immediately before Narcissus; the churches listed are Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea,
Jerusalem, Corinth and Ephesus, all apostolic sees and all except Jerusalem capital cities.
Bright, who assumed that Jerusalem enjoyed "precedency among the suffragan churches," wrote that "Caesarea was the undoubted metropolis of Palestine: and its bishop Theophilus had, in the latter part of the second century, presided over a synod of Palestinian bishops" (Euseb. 5.23).17 But, in fact, what Eusebius says at 5.23 is that Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem presided. In the Paul of Samosata episode (264-268/9) at Antioch, Jerusalem scores heavily:
Eusebius names Hymenaeus before Theotecnus; and in the encyclical letter issued by the final synod, Hymenaeus' name
15 Eusebius, Rist. eccles. 6.8.1-5; 6.19.16-19; 6.23.4; 6.27; Jerome, De vir. illus.54.
16 Eusebius, Rist. eccles. 5.22.
17 W. Bright, Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils (Oxford 1882) 22. The date of the synod was ca. 196.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
stands second, immediately after Helenus of Tarsus, who was apparently president after the death of Firmilianus.18 Vailhe,19 however, wrote: "dans ce synode regional les preseances paraissent etablies, non d'apres la preeminence du siege, mais d'apres la date d'ordination." Possibly the position had changed, to jerusalem's disadvantage, by 300. Caesarea, but not Jerusalem, is listed among the sees represented at the councils of Ancyra (ca. 314) and Caesarea in Cappadocia (ca.
318); neither council, however, was restricted to metropolitans.2o In any case, there seems to be no reason to believe that at least up to 270 Jerusalem was, at least in practice, subject to Caesarea.
Arius was hospitably received by Eusebius. Since his denunciation of Macarius, apparently written from Caesarea, belongs to the year 324, it is likely that Macarius took a leading part in the council of Antioch (early 325) which condemned Eusebius. Moreover, Hort may be right in his view that Macarius took a prominent part in the defeat of Eusebius at Nicaea.21 Certainly from 324 until the death of Maximus in 348/9 relations between Jerusalem and Caesarea must have been extremely tense-indeed not far from a state of ecclesiastical war. The situation was aggravated by the fact that for eighty-five years from ca. 330 the patriarchal church of Antioch was paralyzed by schism and could do little or nothing to make peace.
Describing the succession of Cyril's predecessor, Maximus, to Macarius early in 335, Sozomen writes:22
The story is that Maximus had earlier been ordained by Macarius to the see of Diospolis [=Lydda], but that the 18 Eusebius, Hist. eccles. 7.28; 7.30.2,5.
19 Loc. cit. Vailhe produces no evidence for this assertion.
20 There seems to be some doubt whether the lists for these two councils are complete. The see of Jerusalem may have been vacant at the time of Ancyra.
21 Hort 59 n. 2; d. Theodoret. Hist. eccles. 1.18; d. 2.4; Sozomen, Hist. eccles. 1.I3.2; 2.20.
22 Sozomen 2.20; "the people" may have included the local clergy (presbyterate).
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
people of Jerusalem insisted on keeping him. For ... he was already the people's tacit choice as Macarius' successor.
Claiming special knowledge of the facts, Sozomen (a Palestinian writing in Constantinople about 446) states that Macarius privately agreed with his people, judging Maximus a suitable successor on account of his sound Trinitarian doctrine, especially as he feared that otherwise Eusebius and Patrophilus of Scythopolis would on his death place an Arian in the see:
"for even during Macarius' lifetime they had attempted a coup." So Maximus was retained by Macarius as his coadjutor and succeeded him. But what is so remarkable is that Macarius should, without consulting Caesarea, have ordained a bishop for a see twenty-five miles to the northwest of Jerusalem;23 and this after Nicaea! The increasing prestige of Jerusalem after the rediscovery of the holy places in 326 may have affected Macarius' bold policy, yet the episode is in striking accord with the picture of Jerusalem'S position as we have tentatively reconstructed it for the years 185-270. For Sozomen writes as if Jerusalem had the right to appoint to certain neighbouring sees and as if election to its own see were simply by "the Chapter."
There is no reason to believe that before 323 or 324 relations between Caesarea and Jerusalem had been anything but friendly. The quarrel was caused by the different attitudes of Eusebius and Macarius to the Nicene definition, and was probably exacerbated by the seventh canon of Nicaea. Soon after, when Eusebius was succeeded by his admirer, Acacius, in 340, the situation deteriorated still further. For when a great East·West council met at Serdica (Sofia) in 342, the Eastern bishops found St. Athanasius, whom they had deposed for canonical reasons, sitting with the Western bishops. They demanded that he withdraw and, when he refused, left the 23 Perhaps what really happened was that Eusebius defeated Macarius' attempt to place his nominee in the see of Diospolis, but failed to prevent Maximus's succession in Jerusalem.