had fallen on their knees before him, and touched his hands as holy28,—signs, as Touttée suggests, of a flourishing state of religion and piety.  Cyril’s care for the poor, and his per- sonal poverty, were manifested by an incident, of which the substantial truth is proved by the malicious use to which it was afterwards perverted.  “Jerusalem and the neighbouring region being visited with a famine, the poor in great multitudes, being destitute of necessary food, turned their eyes upon Cyril as their Bishop.  As he had no money to succour them in their need, he sold the treasures and sacred veils of the Church.  It is said, therefore, that some one recognised an offering of his own as worn by an actress on the stage, and made it his business to inquire whence she had it, and found that it had been sold to her by a merchant, and to the merchant by the Bishop29.” This was one of the charges brought against Cyril in the course of the disputes between himself and Acacius, which had commenced soon after he had been installed in the Bishopric of Jerusalem.  As Bishop of Cæsarea, Acacius exercised Metropolitan jurisdiction over the Bishops of Palestine.  But Cyril, as presiding over an Apostolic See, “the Mother of all the Churches,” claimed exemption from the jurisdiction of Cæsarea, and higher rank than its Bishop.  It is not alleged, nor is it in any way probable, that Cyril claimed also the jurisdiction over other Bishops.  The rights and privileges of his See had been clearly defined many years before by the 7th Canon of the Council of Nicæa:  “As custom and ancient tradition shew that the Bishop of Ælia ought to be honoured, let him have precedence in honour, without prejudice to the proper dignity of the Metropolitical See.”  Eusebius30, in reference to a Synod concerning the time of Easter, says:  “There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine (about 200 a.d.), over whom Theophilus, Bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem, presided.”  If one Synod only is here meant, it would appear that the Bishop of Cæsarea took precedence of the Bishop of Jerusalem, which would be the natural order in a Synod held at Cæsarea.  Bishop Hefele, however, takes a different xiv view31:  “According to the Synodicon, two Synods were held in Palestine on the subject of the Easter controversy:  the one at Jerusalem presided over by Narcissus, and composed of fourteen Bishops; and the other at Cæsarea, comprising twelve Bishops, and presided over by Theophilus.”  In confirmation of this view we may observe that when next Eusebius mentions Narcissus and Theophilus, he reverses the previous order, and names the Bishop of Jerusalem first. However this may have been, Acacius, who as an Arian was likely to have little respect for the Council of Nicæa, seems to have claimed both precedence and jurisdiction over 28 Epist. iv. p. 12. 29 Sozom. H. E. iv. 25. 30 Hist. Eccl. v. 23. 31 History of the Christian Councils, Book I. Sec. ii. c. 10 Life of S. Cyril.