CYRUS
CYRUS
775
Laodicea attributes to Cyrus the charge of Sa-bellianism brought against Eustathius, at thepacked council of Antioch, by which he wasdeposed in 331. But Socrates argues for theimprobability of the story, inasmuch as Cyruswas himself degraded on the same charge.(Socr. H\ E. i. 24 ; ii. 9.) [E. V.]
CYRUS (2), bishop of Tyre, was present atthe council of Ephesus in 4-31. He was a leadingmember of the party of John of Antioch and theoriental bishops, against Cyril of Alexandria, andwas chosen as one of the deputation to wait onTheodosius to lay a complaint of the illegality ofhis proceedings, but being indisposed, Macariusof Laodicea took his place. He was deposed byCyril in the name of the council. (Baluz. Nov.Cone. Collect. 577, 705, 725; Tragoed. Iren. c.13, 28.) [E. V.]
(3) Bishop of Aphrodisias, metropolitan of
Cairo. He was born of Christian parents, andwas a monk before he was a bishop. He attendedthe council of Ephesus in 431, where he wasconspicuous for his vacillation. He was one ofthe 198 prelates who signed the act of Nestorius’sdeposition (Labbe, Concil. iii. 535), and ex-pressed his approbation of Cyril’s letter to Nes-torius (%b. 465), and yet the next day, after thearrival of Candidian, his name is found with 15others appended to the appeal of Nestorius to theemperors against the legality of the actsof the council, and for the convocation ofanother. (Baluz. Concil. 701.) His weaknessof character was still more strikingly shewn,when at the “ Robbers’ Synod,” in 449, he signedthe act of condemnation of Flavian and Eusebius.(Labbe Concil. iv. 305.) The character of Cyrus,however, stood so high that in 456 he was speciallyexempted from the operation of a general law bythe emperor Theodosius II., on account of hisgreat merits. (Cod. Theod. vol. i., 1. 37, p. 46;Tillemont, xiv. 378, 763.) [E. V.]
(4) Bishop of Phasis, near the mouth of theriver of the same name among the Lazi, inColchis, and afterwards patriarch of Alexandria,a.d. 630-641, who took a prominent part in themeasures of the emperor Heraclius for theunion of the monophysite party with theCatholic Church. Heraclius on his return fromhis successful campaign against the Persians,met Cyrus at Phasis, and conversed with him onthe scheme of union he had in view. The for-mula borrowed from the writings of Dionysiusthe Areopagite, ivepyeia deardpucfi, which hehoped wculd be the basis of this union, was atfirst unacceptable to Cyrus, who applied forcounsel to Sergius, the monothelite patriarch ofConstantinople. Letters passed between them(Labbe, Concil. vi. 916, 949, 952). Cyrus’s diffi-culties were thus removed, and he gave his heartysupport to the emperor’s designs. His serviceswere speedily rewarded by his elevation to thepatriarchate of Alexandria, A.D. 630. Hisimmediate predecessor was George, who, accord-ing to Eutychius (but the statement is deemedgroundless by Dr. Neal ft), had deserted hisbishopric either through fear or treachery, onthe approach of the Saracen forces. As patriarchCyrus set himself vigorously to effect the unionof the Egyptian monophysites, known as Theo-dosians, with the catholic body. The basis ofunion was a formulary of agreement (ttKtjpo-
(popla ) in nine articles, the object of which wasto establish a compromise between the dogmaticdefinitions of Chalcedon, and those of monophy-sitism, employing each mutually to explain theother (Labbe, Concil. vi. 953 sq.). The seventh otthese articles lays down that the “ one and thesame Christ, the Son, performed the worksproper to God and to man by one theandricoperation ” (pa§ OeavSptKT} ivepyeitf). The com-promise was eagerly accepted by the Theodosians,who boasted that they had not come over to thechurch, but the church to them. It was in vainthat Sophronius, a learned monk of Palestinethen at Alexandria, protested with tears againstsuch a sacrifice of truth to peace. A hollowunion was effected, and Cyrus beheld with joythe Theodosians communicating in vast multi-tudes with the catholics. (See his letters, Labbe,vi. 921, 952.) But such an agreement howeverspecious, being based on the suppression of realdifferences, could not be lasting. In an ex-ceedingly short time it fell into such neglect thatit was contemptuously termed “ the washyunion,” evwcris u5po/3a<^s, and was succeededby new and more bitter schisms. Sergius ofConstantinople alarmed at the growing influenceof Sophronius, who had been appointed patriarchof Jerusalem, A.D. 634, appealed to pope Hono-rius I., who wrote both to Sergius and Cyrus,as well as to Sophronius, approving of theoeconomy by which Cyrus had brought about theagreement, but deprecating the introduction ofdogmatic definitions unsanctioned by the CatholicChurch, and expressing his alarm at the pursuitof theological refinements inimical to true godli-ness (Labbe, Concil. vi. 917-933; Harduin,Concil. iii. 1315, 1319). The wise counsels ofHonorius were unavailing. The distractions ofthe church continued, and the Ekthesis publishedby Heraclius, A.d. 639, though formally acceptedby a council at Alexandria under Cyrus, metwith no better success.
While the Egyptian church was thus rentasunder by intestine divisions, the conquest ofEgypt itself by the Saracens was fast approach-ing. Egypt was invaded by Omar’s generalAmrou in June, a.d. 638. So high was Hera-clius’s estimate of the ability of Cyrus that hecommitted to him the prefecture of Egypt andthe conduct of the war. Cyrus prevailed onAmrou to withdraw his forces by the promise ofthe payment of an annual tribute, and of thebetrothal to him of the emperor’s daughterEudocia (Theophan. pp. 280-281 ;/ Niceph.Breviar. pp. 17, 18). On hearing of these de-grading propositions Heraclius indignantly sum-moned Cyrus to Constantinople. The intelli-gence of the siege of Alexandria alone saved hislife. He was sent back to negotiate terms withAmrou. But he arrived too late. Amrou wastoo sanguine of the reduction of Alexandria tobe diverted from his purpose. After fourteenmonths’ siege the city capitulated and fell intothe hands of the Saracens, Dec. 22,. A.D. 640.The chief actors did not long survive the cata-strophe. Heraclius died in February, a.d. 641,and, though the date is uncertain, Cyrus’s deceasewas not much after.
(Neander, Clark’s transl. vol. v. pp. 227-237 ;Sharpe, Hist of Egypt , vol. ii. p. 373 ; Gibbon,vol. vi. pp. 446 and 458.) [Coptic Church.]
[E. V.].