Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 7 (Augustine: Gospel and Epistle of John)

While the appeal was pending, Cyril became acquainted with “the learned Bishop, Basil of Ancyra,” Eustathius of Sebaste in Armenia, and George of Laodicea, the chief leaders of the party usually (since Epiphanius), but with some injustice, designated Semi-Arian. One of the charges brought against Cyril in the Council of Constantinople (360 A.D.) was, as we shall see, that he held communion with these Bishops.

Cyril had not long to wait for the hearing of his appeal. In the year 359, the Eastern Bishops met at Seleucia in Isauria, and the Western at Ariminum. Constantius had at first wished to convene a general council of all the Bishops of the Empire, but this intention he was induced to abandon by representations of the long journeys and expense. He therefore directed the two synods then assembled at Ariminum and at Seleucia “the Rugged” to investigate first the disputes concerning the Faith, and then to turn their attention to the complaints of Cyril and other Bishops against unjust decrees of deposition and banishment. This order of proceeding was discussed, and after much controversy adopted on the first day of meeting, the 27th of September. On the second day, Acacius and his friends refused to remain unless the Bishops already deposed or under accusation were excluded. Theodoret relates that “several friends of peace tried to persuade Cyril of Jerusalem to withdraw, but that, as he would not comply, Acacius left the assembly.” Three days afterwards, according to Sozomen, a third meeting was held at which the demand of Acacius was complied with; “for the Bishops of the opposite party were determined that he should have no pretext for dissolving the council, which was evidently his object in order to prevent the impending examination of the heresy of Aetius and of the accusations which had been brought against him and his partisans.” A creed put forward by Acacius having been rejected, he refused to attend any further meetings, though repeatedly summoned to be present at an investigation of his own charges against Cyril.

In the end, Acacius and many of his friends were deposed or excommunicated. Some of these, however, in defiance of the sentence of the council, returned to their dioceses, as did also the majority who had deposed them.

It is not expressly stated whether any formal decision on the case of Cyril was adopted by the council; but as his name does not appear in the lists of those who were deposed or excommunicated, it is certain that he was not condemned. It is most probable that the charges against him were disregarded after his accuser Acacius had refused to appear, and that he returned, like the others, to his diocese. But he was not to be left long in peace. Acacius and some of his party had hastened to Constantinople, where they gained over to their cause the chief men attached to the palace, and through their influence secured the favor of Constantius and roused his anger against the majority of the council. But what especially stirred the Emperor’s wrath were the charges which Acacius concocted against Cyril. “For,” he said, “the holy robe which the Emperor Constantine of blessed memory, in his desire to honor the Church of Jerusalem, had presented to Macarius, the Bishop of that city, to be worn when he administered the rite of Holy Baptism, all fashioned as it was with golden threads, had been sold by Cyril, and bought by one of the dancers at the theatre, who had put it on, and while dancing had fallen, and injured himself, and died. With such an ally as this Cyril,” he said, “they undertake to judge and pass sentence upon the rest of the world.”