About the right faith of the princesses. Part I

The common title “On the Right Faith” unites 3 books written by St. Cyril of Alexandria in the spring or summer of 430: “On the right faith to the Emperor Theodosius,” “On the right faith to the princesses,” and “On the right faith to the queens.” The treatises were sent to Emperor Theodosius II and members of his family in order to reveal to them the false teachings of Nestorius (without mentioning his name) and thereby enlist their support in the dogmatic dispute that flared up. The essay “On Right Faith to the Princesses” (224 chapters) is the most extensive book in the cycle and is addressed to the emperor’s younger sisters – Arkadia and Marina. St. Cyril calls them “brides of Christ” and says that they are adorned with “the glory of virginity” (chap. 1, 2). The treatise consists of an introduction (chap. 1-20) and a main part (chap. 21-224), containing quotes from the New Testament with brief interpretations. Quotes are grouped by thematic sections. Within each department, they are given in a certain order of biblical books (Epistle of the Apostle Paul, Acts of the Holy Apostles, Council Epistles, Gospels (Matthew, John, Luke)). The introductory part contains a statement of faith (a kind of paraphrase of the provisions of the Nicene Creed), reveals the doctrine of the Incarnation and affirms the need to call the Most Holy Virgin the Mother of God: “Immanuel is God by nature, therefore the Holy Virgin who gave birth to Him is the Mother of God.” St. Cyril points out that denying the name “Theotokos” inevitably leads to the teaching of “two Sons”: the Son of God and an ordinary person. This calls into question the salvation accomplished by Christ, since the death of an ordinary person cannot have redemptive significance (chap. 6-8). The saint supports his judgments with quotations from the works of the holy fathers: Ch. 10-18 represent the patristic florilegium. Several of the works presented in this florilegium are currently considered pseudepigrapha. In particular, quoted under the name of St. Athanasius of Alexandria’s word “On the Incarnation,” including the famous formula “one nature of God the Word is incarnate,” is classified as an Apollinarian forgery. The saint speaks about the correct use of the name “Christ” and makes an important remark: Christ is a perfect God and a perfect man. Most of the chapters in the body of the essay are focused on establishing this thesis. The unity of Christ is supported by a number of soteriological arguments: “Christ is called the second Adam, and just as the first Adam brought us down into corruption, so the second Adam raised us to life, dying for us, not as a mere man, so that we would not remain dead in Him, but as God in the flesh, and by it He suffered humanly, so that with Him who Divinely resurrected His own church, we too would be resurrected” (chapter 153). *The title of the work in Greek is Προσφωνητικὸς ταῖς εὐσεβεστάταις δεσποίναις. *The title of the work in Latin is Oratio ad Arcadiam et Marinam augustas de fide / De recta fide ad dominas / De recta fide ad principissas / De recta fide ad reginas. Part I • Part II • Part III Chapters 1–20. Translation from ancient Greek by priest Vasily Dmitriev. Edited translation, preface and notes by Hieromonk Theodore (Yulaev) The publication is a Russian translation of the introductory part of the extensive polemical treatise of St. Cyril of Alexandria, part of the group of dogmatic epistles “On the Right Faith.” The preface describes the circumstances of writing the treatise, discusses the content of its introductory part, and gives a brief overview of its editions and ancient translations. In the comments to the translation, special attention is paid to the attribution of the works quoted by the saint in the patristic florilegion, which is presented in the introductory part of the treatise. Key words: St. Cyril of Alexandria, New Testament, patristics, patristic exegesis, polemical literature, Christology, soteriology, Nestorianism, Ecumenical Councils, patristic florilegium, pseudepigrapha. Three books, or three dogmatic epistles, “On the Right Faith,” which are among the largest anti-Nestorian treatises of St. Cyril of Alexandria, written before the Third Ecumenical (Ephesus) Council, in the spring or summer of 430. They were sent to Emperor Theodosius II and members of his family in order to expose to them the false teaching of Nestorius (without mentioning his name) and thereby enlist their support in the heated dogmatic dispute 1. An early edition of the first book of this cycle, “On Right Faith to Emperor Theodosius,” 2 is the dialogue “On the Incarnation of the Only Begotten,” written several years before the start of the Nestorian polemics, the Russian translation of which was published in “Theological Bulletin” 3. The third book, “On Right Faith to Queens,” was also presented in our magazine 4 . We are now beginning to publish a translation of the most voluminous book among these treatises, the second book, “On the Right Faith to the Princesses” 5 . To whom exactly it is addressed is not directly stated in the text itself, which has previously caused conflicting opinions among researchers 6 . This was clarified by a document compiled by supporters of the Council of Chalcedon at the end of the 5th century. “Kirillov collection” (Florilegium Cyrillianum). In it, this book is called “a message to the queens Arcadia and Marina” 7, that is, to the younger sisters of Emperor Theodosius II, in contrast to the third book, designated as “a message to the most pious queens Pulcheria and Eudokia” 8, that is, to his elder sister and his wife. This agrees well with the data that can be extracted from the text itself. In his book to the princesses, the saint calls his recipients “the brides of Christ” and says that they are adorned with “the glory of virginity” (chapter 1, 2:20). In the book to the queens, he clearly distinguishes between the addressees of both messages, also designating the previous book as written for “holy virgins” 9, and its comparative clarity and simplicity 10 noted by the author himself can naturally be explained by the fact that it was intended for “younger” queens. In some contradiction with this are the words of the imperial letter to St. Cyril, from which we can conclude that there were only two epistles of the saint to the royal persons, of which one was written for Theodosius II and his wife, and the other for St. Pulcheria 11. Based on this evidence, and also due to the absence of any conclusion in the book to the princesses, Priest T. Lyashchenko (future Bishop Tikhon) concluded that both letters to the royal wives are one composition, divided into two parts, or two books (λόγοι), the addressees of which were St. Pulcheria and her sisters 12. Jerome. Panteleimon (Uspensky), in turn, suggested that St. Cyril initially actually intended to write one book for the queens, but due to the growing volume, he cut off its presentation and wrote it for Evdokia and St. Pulcheria's special work, which included the rest of the proposed plan. And since the first book “turned out to be raw and rather elementary in content,” he dedicated it to the emperor’s younger sisters. Thus, he determined the addressees of the messages to the royal wives exactly as reported by “Kirillov Collection”, which put an end to this issue even before its publication. The words of the imperial charter by Hierarch. Panteleimon successfully explains that the ambassadors of St. Cyril in Constantinople, they handed one letter to the emperor, who considered that it was intended for his wife, and the other two – to St. Pulcheria 13. This treatise consists of an introduction (chap. 1–20) and a main part (chap. 21–224), containing quotations from the New Testament with interpretations, which, as a rule, are rather short syllogisms. Quotations are grouped by thematic sections, and within each section they are given in a specific order of biblical books 14. In the introduction, after a word of praise to the princesses (chapter 1), the saint announces his intention to present them with his new “little book” (βιβλίδιον) and expresses the key thesis of the entire work: Emmanuel is God by nature, therefore the Holy Virgin who gave birth to Him is the Mother of God (chapter 2). This is followed by a confession of faith, where, after a brief presentation of the Trinity dogma, in the form of a kind of paraphrase of the provisions of the Nicene Creed, St. Cyril moves on to Christology, emphasizing the identity of the Son and the Word of God before and after the Incarnation and, as a consequence, the need to talk about His birth according to the flesh (chap. 3–5). He points out that denying the name “Theotokos” inevitably leads to the doctrine of two Sons: the Son of God and an ordinary man, and this, in turn, casts doubt on the salvation accomplished by Christ, since the death of an ordinary man cannot have redemptive significance (chap. 6–8). In confirmation that the name of the Holy Virgin Theotokos was “customary” for the previous holy fathers (chapter 9), the saint offers 13 quotations from 9 works by different authors (chapters 10–18). The custom of supporting theological reasoning with reference to authoritative church writers had already come into use by the time of St. Cyril, but it was he who, in polemics with Nestorius, began to systematically select quotations from their works, laying the foundation for the genre of dogmatic florilegia, which flourished in the era of Christological disputes, 15, one of the first examples of which is the collection included in the book “On the Right Faith to the Princesses.” Although the name “Theotokos” appears here only in three cases, this only indicates that for the saint it was not so much this term in itself that was important as the Christological teaching it expressed, 16 the identity of the second Person of the Holy Trinity with the One who was born of the Virgin, which is affirmed in all the evidence he cited. Several works presented in this florilegium are currently considered pseudepigrapha, in particular, cited under the name of St. Athanasius of Alexandria's word “On the Incarnation” (chap. 10), including the famous formula “one nature of God the Word incarnate” (μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη), which is considered one of the Apollinarian forgeries 17. Concluding his introduction, the saint considers it necessary to clarify the correct use of the name “Christ.” He reproduces the point of view of his opponents (Nestorius) as follows: they apply the name “Christ” both separately to the Word of God and to the “man” born of the Virgin, and to both together, since by virtue of their “combination” (συνάφεια) They are connected into one person. But this name cannot be applied to the Word before the incarnation, because it signifies the anointing of the Holy Spirit, which the Word could have only through humanity. It is unacceptable to relate him separately “to the One and the Other”, because Christ is one and indivisible. Finally, an important remark is made, which should eliminate all suspicions of his adherence to Apollinarianism, already expressed during the polemics by his opponents: Christ is a perfect God and a perfect man (chap. 19-20). After this, the saint moves on to the main part of the treatise 18. The book “On Right Faith to the Princesses” is available in a number of handwritten collections of acts of the Third Ecumenical (Ephesus) Council and was repeatedly published as part of them, starting with the Heidelberg editio princeps (1591) and continuing with the editions of F. Labbé - G. Cossard (1671) and J.-D. Muncie (1760) 19. But J. Gardouin directly informed the reader that he considered it inappropriate to include in his collection of acts of the Council of Ephesus (1715) the book “On the Right Faith” by St. Cyril of Alexandria, as well as some of his major treatises 20. This work is also not found in the Kazan “Acts of the Ecumenical Councils” in the Russian translation 21, where documents related to the Third Ecumenical Council are generally presented with large gaps 22. The book was also included in the printed collections of the works of the Alexandrian saint: J. Aubert (1638), according to which it was reproduced in the “Patrology” of J.-P. Minya (1859), and F. Pusey (1877) 23. Nine extracts from the book were included in the “Kirillov Collection” 24, one fragment is quoted in the “Exact Exposition” of St. John of Damascus 25. The book is partially preserved in ancient translations: Ethiopian (Geez) 26 and Armenian 27. The newest critical edition of the Greek text is by E. Schwartz (1927) in his edition of the acts of the Council of Ephesus based on the handwritten Vatican collection of the mid-15th century. with the involvement of the XI century Segye collection. (as well as two codices of the 16th century, belonging to the same group of manuscripts) and the Athens collection of the 12th century. 28 The basis for the published translation is the candidate's essay of the 1916 MDA graduate priest. Vasily Dmitriev 29, the text of which has been completely revised. The final version is brought into conformity with the edition by E. Schwartz. The Holy Scripture, which Dmitriev quoted in Church Slavonic, is now given in Russian, the New Testament - mainly according to the Synodal translation, the Old Testament - according to the translation of Prof. P. A. Yungerova. Differences between biblical quotations from St. Cyril from the available editions of the Greek text of the Holy Scriptures and its Russian translations are reflected in the notes 30. ALEXANDRIAN, ADDRESS TO THE MOST PIOUS LADIES (1) The pride of the universe and the praise of the holy Churches of Christ, the Savior of us all, can rightfully be called you, His holy and immaculate brides, most pious and most God-loving queens, in whom shines the multi-colored beauty of virtue, pleasant and best known to the eyes of the Divine, and with diligence and diligence [is arranged] 31, or rather, the necessary things have already been arranged in order to to stand out with a right and in no way shaken faith. Nowhere in his writings does the wise Paul, truly versed in the law and ministering the mystery of Christ to the pagans, say: “Therefore, my beloved brothers, be strong, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord.”32 After all, where right and impeccable faith fully coincides with the glory of good deeds and enters on an equal footing with them, there will certainly be perfection in all goodness and the fullness of sanctification. Therefore, although every word of ours yields to your inherent glory and is not at all ashamed to admit defeat, it might deserve an apology, since it is afraid to praise something whose dignity it cannot achieve. After all, if it has the strength to happily accomplish what it wants, it will be subject to great censure, succumbing to negligence, and delay in this should not be excused by anyone from accusations of laziness, for those whom it [the word] was rightly capable of decorating with praiseworthy speeches for virtue, it instead upsets by choosing silence. But if it becomes exhausted, timid and admits defeat, then we will attribute the reasons for this not to him at all, but to you, so famous, who by the superiority of your valor revealed the insignificance of all who are accustomed to decorate their speeches. After all, although your family from ancient times and from distant times has achieved royal dignity, extends to this day and will continue to do so, as we believe, but now, having wisely taken possession of the kingdom in Christ, you strive to think and act as He pleases, on the one hand, distinguished by deeds and impeccable faith, as I said, and decorating your royal courts with the glory of virginity, on the other hand, by erecting valuable churches Christ, for this, along with other things, was given by Him to your holy souls. (2) Therefore (I will say, taking something from the Holy Scriptures) “Rejoice in the Lord always; and again I say: rejoice. Let your meekness be known to all people." 33 So, it was recognized and proclaimed, and throughout all countries and cities, like some kind of painted picture, the beauty of piety in Christ shone clearly, and it earned everyone’s surprise. But I considered it necessary for you, who fully possess whatever good you may have, to teach a certain spiritual gift 34, as the holy brides of Christ, namely, this little book I just wrote, which, I think, is capable of delivering considerable benefit to those who take it up. After all, anyone who has been taught to think incorrectly about the Savior of us all, Christ, or who has been persuaded to do so, will be led to correction and taught beautifully in the sacrament. Well, those who are established in the right mind and willingly abide in the teachings of the truth, it will show them to be more steadfast thanks to the diverse conclusions 35 arising from good reflections and evidence from the inspired Scripture. After all, it will become clear that Emmanuel is God by nature and truth, and thanks to Him, the Virgin who gave birth is the Mother of God. But those who were afraid to speak and think like this did not properly understand the deep mystery of piety 36 . I consider it necessary to briefly communicate the apostolic and evangelical tradition that has developed about Christ, the Lord of all, the purpose of what is said about Him in all the inspired Scriptures and what the meaning of true dogmas is directed towards. (3) We therefore believe “in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ,” His Son, born of Him by nature before all age and time. And He is coeternal in time and coeternal with His Parent, sits with Him and is equal to Him in glory, and is crowned with equality in everything, for He is the reflection 37 and the radiance of His hypostasis 38 . We believe, like this, “and in the Holy Spirit,” considering Him not alien to the Divine nature, for He is by nature from the Father, pouring out through the Son into creation. This is how one conceives of the one, consubstantial, and abiding in the identity of glory, the holy and worshipable Trinity. We say that He Himself, ineffably begotten from the essence of God and the Father, is His Only Begotten Word, the Creator of the ages, through Whom are all things, and in Whom are all things, the true Light, the life-giving nature of all (for He is Life, manifested from Life, the Father) in the last times of the age, by the good pleasure of the Father, in order to save the earthly race, which had fallen under the curse and through sin was reduced to death and corruption, took on the seed of Abraham 40 and partook of blood and flesh 41, according to Scripture, that is, it became a man and, taking on flesh and making it its own, was born carnally through the holy Mother of God Mary. (4) But although He became like us (καθ’ ἡμᾶς), and according to the dispensation took on the form of a servant, He remained in Godhead and dominion by nature. After all, He did not cease to be God, even though He became flesh, that is, a man like us. Since He, unchangeable by nature as God, having remained what He eternally was, and is, and will be, was called the Son of man, (5) and since He voluntarily descended into the conditions of humanity (for He reduced Himself to exhaustion), He inevitably underwent birth from a woman. Moreover, His Divine nature did not receive the beginning of being when it is said that He was born according to the flesh, but the Word was and is, as I said, from God the Father by nature and in truth. And since the One born of the Holy Virgin is thought of not just as a person like us, but as the Word Himself, incarnate and having a body from Her as His own, for this reason it is said of Him that He was born carnally, 42 as having assimilated to Himself the birth of His own flesh. 6) Those who recklessly claim that the Holy Virgin is not the Mother of God are inevitably forced to talk about the two Sons of God. After all, if the Holy Virgin did not give birth to the fleshly incarnate God, then it is absolutely necessary for them, even against their will, to confess that She gave birth to an ordinary person who has nothing greater in comparison with us. How then shall every knee bow before Him and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father? 43 Why do the angels and the holy host of the highest powers worship Him? 44 Did all of heaven then begin to serve the common man with us? It won't happen! For we worship Immanuel as the true God, and He is not to be worshiped except if we believe that the very Word of God, whom all creation worships, became flesh, 45 according to the Scriptures, not being transformed into flesh, but taking flesh from the Holy Virgin, as I said, and suffering with us the human birth, so that, having become human for our sake, he would die humanly and be resurrected divinely, trampled the power of death. After all, it was thus possible for us, as those who had won in Christ, to overcome sin, to put away corruption from ourselves, to avoid death, and thus to cry out with great joy in Christ: “Death! where is your victory 46? hell! where is your sting? 47 For just as we fell in Adam, so we have overcome in Christ. (7) If Immanuel was an ordinary man, then how could human nature be helped by the death of a man? Despite the fact that many holy prophets died first, that famous Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses, and Samuel, and subsequently the former saints, but their death did not bring any benefit to the human race on earth, but saved Christ’s. After all, He offered His own flesh for us and, having given it up to death for our sake, took us all away from the bonds of death. For it was enough for One to die for all, the most valuable of all, since the Word from God is God by nature, and His own body is offered for us as a aroma pleasing to God 48 and the Father 49 . Therefore, it is wicked and extremely inappropriate to divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two Sons; but the wise Paul also opposes them, saying: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” 50. After all, if there is one Lord and one is cut into two Sons, to whom will we then give the glory of dominion? Is it the Word born of the Father? For He is most suited to rule, both in name and in reality, and He is truly the Lord of all. Then where do we place the Other? After all, He will be outside of being Lord, inferior to the One who existed before and incomparably surpasses Him. But as those who separate themselves assert, we must attribute the glory of dominion to Him who is from the woman? Why then will the Word from God the Father be Lord, if, according to the Scriptures, there is only one Lord 51, and we assign the name of dominion to a common man? And why then one faith? Or why one baptism? After all, if, according to some, there are two Sons, in whom will we believe? To say that in the One in whose name we are baptized, although baptism is one, would be characteristic of their ignorance. (8) But your insight sees, of course, that the speech here is drunken and reaching the point of obscenity, or better yet, has already deviated towards extreme impiety. And you, I think, who carefully study His Divine Mystery, with the sharp eye of your mind, recognize those who want to catch you, and although they give a pious appearance to their words, they are sharper than all their copies. After all, as far as their true meaning is concerned, they reject the Master who redeemed them, 52 that is, Christ, but, fearing the grief this will cause for those who are accustomed to piety, and, of course, their admirable zeal, they even confess that He who was born of the holy Virgin is God, and also that He is the Lord and Son of God. And when one of the simpletons listens to their words, he will probably think that what they say is right, fair and does not deviate from the true dogmas. But if you take up their careful study and make an exact test of what has been said, you will not find simplicity. After all, although “there are many gods and many lords in heaven and on earth,” as the blessed one writes to us. Paul, “but we have one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we are to Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him” 53 . Only whenever we name Jesus Christ, we designate the Word from God the Father, manifested in human form, which has no dignity as grace, nor brought in from without, but is truly what He is believed to be. After all, being God by nature even without flesh, He remained God with flesh; and being a Son by nature even before the flesh, He remained a Son even when He became flesh; and being truly the Lord of all, He is seen in this glory and found himself in humanity. Therefore, if they say that the One born of the Holy Virgin is the true God, that is, the Word from God the Father, by nature united with the flesh, why then are they afraid to confess that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God? However, their goal is to pretend that yes, He is both God and Lord, and sits with the Father. But in fact, of course, they do not think like that, but they say that an ordinary person, such as us, born of the Holy Virgin, is given, as it were, by grace and success, the glory of sonship and dominion. (9) And that the expression “Mother of God” has become customary for the holy fathers themselves who came before us, who are admired for their rightful faith, and for everyone living throughout, one might say, the heavenly world, this, I reasoned, must be proven in reality. After all, so that they do not think that I am speaking without checking, simply what comes to mind, having collected from the books they compiled in the churches suitable for this and presenting it as evidence, I will record the truth of my words. So, truly blessed and glorified in piety, Athanasius, who was at one time the bishop of the Alexandrian Church, in the word “On the Incarnation” 54 said the following about Christ: (10) “We also confess,” he says, “that He is the Son of God and God according to the Spirit, the Son of Man according to the flesh 55; that one Son is not two natures, one of which is to be worshiped and the other not to be worshiped, but one nature of God the Word incarnate and receiving worship together with His flesh by one worship; and not two Sons, one is the true Son of God and accepts worship, and the other is a man from Mary, who does not receive worship, but became the Son of God by grace, like men. But He who is from God, as I said, the only Son of God and God, He Himself, and not another, was born of Mary according to the flesh in the last days, as in the words of the Mother of God Mary: “How will this be when I do not know a husband?” - said the Angel: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God” 56. Therefore, the One born of the Holy Virgin is the Son of God by nature and true God, and not by grace; and only through participation (μετουσίᾳ) in the flesh is He a man from Mary, and in the Spirit is He Himself the Son of God and God. Although He endured our suffering in the flesh, as it is written: “Christ suffered for us 57 in the flesh” 58 - and again: “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all” 59 , but in His Divinity he remained impassive and unchangeable, according to what the prophet said: “I am God 60 and do not change” 61 . Although He died in the flesh by our death for our sins, in order to destroy death through death for us, according to the words of the Apostle: “Death is swallowed up in victory. Death! where is your victory? hell! where is your sting? 62 - and again: “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures” 63, but according to the Divinity he remained immortal and invincible by death, like the impassive power of the Father, according to Peter, who says that death “could not restrain Him” 64. Further, having placed something else in the middle, he adds this: “If anyone, contrary to this, teaches from the Divine Scriptures, saying that one Son is God, and the other is from Mary, who received adoption by grace as we do, as if there are two Sons, one Son of God by nature, from God, and the other by grace, a man from Mary, or if anyone says that the flesh of our Lord is from above, and not from the Virgin Mary, or that the Godhead of the Lord has been transformed into flesh, or that the Divinity of the Lord has been transformed, or mixed, or changed, or is subject to suffering, or that the flesh of the Lord is not subject to worship, like the flesh of man, and denies that it should be worshiped, as the flesh of the Lord and God - this is anathematized by the Holy Catholic Church, obeying the divine Apostle, who says: “Whoever preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, let him be anathema.”65 And this is blzh. Afanasy; but I think that it is necessary to present the sayings of other holy bishops that have the same purpose. (11) “Today the Lord Christ received the birth of love for mankind, for by the birth of Divine dignity He existed before” 67 . Further to this he adds: “The word of love for mankind is exhausted, being by nature alien to exhaustion, for He exhausted 68 Himself, taking the form of a servant 69 . The incorporeal itself becomes incarnate, for the Word became flesh 70; not subject to touch due to the incorporeality of nature is tangible; the beginningless turns out to be subordinate to the bodily principle; perfect increases; the unchangeable succeeds; the rich man is born in a hut; covering the sky with clouds 71 ​​is swaddled; The king rests in a manger.” (12) “Whom yesterday with immaculate release from the burden the 73 Mother of Life, the Mother of Beauty, the Great Mother, the Light-Bearer, the Hope-Bearer, the Mother of God, the Wonder-Bird of the Virgin Mary, gave birth to as a Savior for us.” Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, from (the book of) birth according to the flesh 74 (13) “The truth is known, grace has come and life has appeared; being the Son of God, the Word from God became flesh for our sake, to raise mortals to eternal life and from the dead. The Creator of all things, who before all creation, visible and invisible, coexisted immortal with the Father and the Spirit alone, is today born to us of the Virgin, apart from all sin, without man or husband.” Ammon, Bishop of Adrianople, after all, he also said somewhere about God the Word 75 (14) “If He was God Himself by nature as the Only Begotten Son of God, then, having been born in the form of a servant 76 and deigning to be called the firstborn Son of the Holy Virgin, He gave Himself as an atonement for all.” And to this he adds: “I have already shown the wickedness into which the Arians fall, saying that the Mother of God Mary had a need for the sacrifices then made according to the law for women giving birth.” John, Bishop of Constantinople, about the Divine Nativity 77, but he speaks about the Holy Virgin (15) “Instead of the sun,” he says, indescribably containing the Sun of truth. And do not investigate how, because where God wants, the order of nature is overcome. For He was willing, able, condescending, saving; everything follows God. Today the One who exists is born, and the One who exists becomes what He was not. After all, being God, He becomes man without ceasing to be God; for He neither through separation from the Godhead became man, nor through advancement He became God from man, but, being the Word, He became flesh through dispassion, so that the nature remains unchanged” 78 . And he adds to this: “He who sits on the high and exalted throne 79 is placed in a manger; the intangible, simple and incorporeal is grasped by human hands; he who breaks the bonds of sin is wrapped in swaddling clothes.”80 (16) “For the Word, born again from the Father, is ineffable, inexpressible, incomprehensible, eternal, and He is born in time from below from the Virgin Mary, so that those who were first born from below may be born again from above, that is, from God.” Vitaly Bishop from the word “On Faith” 82 (17) “We also believe about the economy of the Savior according to the flesh, that although the Word of God remains unchangeable and immutable, for the renewal of humanity the incarnation took place. After all, being truly the Son of God by eternal birth from the Father, He also became the Son of Man by birth from the Virgin, and one and the same is perfect God in Divinity, consubstantial with the Father, and He is perfect man by birth from the Virgin, consubstantial with people in the flesh. If anyone says that Christ has a body from heaven, or that He is consubstantial with God in the flesh, let him be anathema. If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is from the Holy Virgin and is consubstantial with people, let him be anathema. If anyone says that our Lord and Savior was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary according to soulless, or insensitive, or dumb, or devoid of mind flesh, let him be anathema. If anyone dares to say that Christ suffered in the Divine, and not in the flesh, as it is written 83, let him be anathema. If anyone divides and dissolves our Lord and Savior and says that one Son is God the Word, and the other is an assumed man, and does not confess that He is one and the same, let him be anathema.” Theophilus Bishop, from an address to those who think in accordance with Origen 84, he said this about Christ (18) “So that they believe 85 that not only in words, but also in power, the true God is the One who appeared, proving the authenticity of this by the greatness of the deeds performed, being God in full, but having become man of his own free will and not omitting anything from human likeness, except for one depravity that has no essence. After all, He became a Baby, and He was confessed as Emmanuel, when the wise men came to Him and proclaimed with worship that the One who had appeared was God. And when He was crucified in flesh, He eclipsed the rays of the sun, with this unprecedented miracle clearly revealing His Divinity, without scattering or dissolving Himself anywhere into two Saviors. But He also said to his disciples: “Do not call anyone a teacher on earth, for you have only one Teacher – Christ” 86 . After all, neither when He proclaimed this to the apostles, He did not separate His Divinity from the visible body, nor when He testified about Himself that He is Christ, did He separate Himself from soul and flesh, turning out to be the same, both - God and man, a visible servant and a known Lord, hiding the greatness of the Divinity with the humble wisdom of incarnation, while exalting the humility of the visible body with action Deities" 87. (19) So, although it is easy to add other very numerous true testimonies to this, I omit them, knowing that it is written: “Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be wiser; give understanding to the righteous, and he will listen willingly” 88. I will only say that all the most excellent and wise fathers of our time call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God. And claiming that the Word from God was united with the flesh by nature, they say that It arose in a virgin’s womb and came from Her according to the flesh, although it received a birth without beginning and before any age and time from the Father. Since it would be natural for the mind, which becomes careless in long combinations of successive verses, to quickly desire to briefly and concisely see the purest beauty of the dogmas about Christ, having collected separately the very, so to speak, core thoughts from the divinely inspired New Testament Scripture, I sent this to your Godly piety, so that you yourself, reading them briefly and in parts, would further illuminate your mind, and lead you to the light of truth and those to whom you decide to benefit, your venerable heads were decorated with apostolic praise. And the reward for this is very rich, because it is written: “He who converts a sinner from his false path will save his soul 89 from death and cover a multitude of sins” 90 . In conclusions, that is, conclusions of thoughts, whenever we say: “therefore, Christ is God” - or: “therefore, Christ is one Son and Lord,” we do not affirm, as these (heretics), that Immanuel was called God, or Son, or Lord by grace, or that He achieved such glory by virtue of prosperity or development (ἐπίδοσις), as one of such to us an ordinary and sanctified person, but, on the contrary, that the Word, being God, although he lowered himself to exhaustion and descended into the form of a servant, is no less the true God and by nature will be the Lord of all and the only in a special sense (ἰδικῶς) Son, becoming conformed to whom we, by the grace given through him, ascend to the glory of sonship. (20) Some, I don’t know why, insist that the name “Christ” befits, on the one hand, separately and separately the Word begotten of the Father, Who exists and is conceived outside the flesh, and, like this, it also befits Him who was born of the Holy Virgin, although they believe that He exists separately and by Himself. Thirdly, it befits both as one, since the image of the combination (ὁ τῆς συναφείας λόγος) 91, as they say, binds them into one person 92. For they have no talk of unity by nature and true, although precisely this path of the sacrament is right and free from error, moreover, their excuse is not simple, but full of bitterness and deception. After all, since the Divinely inspired Scripture, naming Christ, refers everything suitable to the Divinity to Him (for it knows for sure that the Word of God appeared in human form and was incarnate), and the goal of those who decided to think differently, contrary to this, is to show that He who is from a woman is an ordinary man, who, as I said, by virtue of his development and, as it were, because of his own human virtue, should also have been respectable by the combination of person with Word from God and to be chosen according to foreknowledge, in so far as they say this, that the name “Christ” befits even the thoughtable and existing Word taken separately and especially in Himself, born of God the Father. We are not taught to think or speak like that. For we affirm that when the Word became flesh, then He was called Christ Jesus. After all, since He received from God the Father the anointing with the oil of joy 93, that is, the Holy Spirit, to that extent He is called Christ 94. And that the anointing was according to humanity, none of those who are accustomed to thinking right 95 can doubt. Indeed, to the extent that He is God and the Word, He would not need anointing, for it cannot be said that the Word of God is anointed and sanctified by His own Spirit, as being different to Him by nature, higher and superior. After all, without any contradiction, the smaller is blessed by the larger 96. Since sanctification and anointing correspond to the limits of human nature, it is absolutely necessary for the Word from God to be called Christ, not when He was still naked and not incarnate, but when, having become like us, that is, man, He was anointed according to humanity, so that the name “Christ” can in no way befit the Word born of God the Father, who has not yet become like us. If He is somewhere called Christ, then consider Him to have become man; and if you hear about the Word after the completion of the incarnation, then do not forget the flesh united with Him. To think that this name separately refers to One and the Other is completely unreasonable, or rather, even impious to think or say so. For there is one Lord Jesus Christ 97 , and He is not divided 98 , as (writes) the wise Paul himself, having within himself Christ speaking to him the Divine Mystery 99 . Moving on to subsequent chapters, you will find my speech correct and presented impeccably from the point of view of truth. But I think it is good to testify in advance the following: just as in Divinity the Word from God the Father is perfect, so in humanity He is perfect, in relation to the definition of humanity, having received a body that is not soulless, but, on the contrary, animated by a rational soul 100 . May the God of all, who distributes heavenly blessings to those who love Him, fill your venerable souls with His gifts, so that you, ascending to the measure of the full stature of Christ 101, may reveal your life worthy of wonder, holy brides of Christ, to be glorious and praiseworthy. Bondach 2008 – Bondach A. Bibliographic index to the “Acts of the Ecumenical Councils”. Part 1. Councils I–III // BV. 2008. No. 7. pp. 401–436. [Bondach A. Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’ k “Deianiiam Vselenskikh soborov”. Chast’ 1. Sobory I–III (Bibliographic index to the “Acts of Ecumenical Councils”. Part 1. Councils I–III) // Bogoslovskii Vestnik (Theological Herald). 2008. No. 7. P. 401–436.] Bondach 2009 – Bondach A. Bibliographical list of the “Acts of the Ecumenical Councils”. Part 1. Councils I–III (continued) // BV. 2009. No. 8–9. pp. 507–550. [Bondach A. Bibliograficheskaia rospis’ “Deianii Vselenskikh soborov”. Chast’ 1. Sobory I–III (prodolzhenie) (Bibliographic list of the “Acts of the Ecumenical Councils”. Part 1. Cathedrals I–III (continuation)) // Bogoslovskii Vestnik (Theological Herald). 2009. No. 8–9. P. 507–550.] Voyku 2010 – Voyku S. John Chrysostom, St. Essays. Attributed // PE. 2010. T. 24. pp. 199–204. [Voiku S. Ioann Zlatoust, sviatitel’ Sochineniia. Pripisyvaemye (John Chrysostom, St. Works. Attributed) // Pravoslavnaia entsiklopedia (Orthodox Encyclopedia). 2010. Volume 24. P. 199–204.] Zabolotny 2016 – Zabolotny E. History of the confessional division of Syrian Christianity and the development of Christology in the 4th–8th centuries. M., 2016 (Diss.). [Zabolotny E. Istoriia konfessional nogo razdeleniia siriiskogo khristianstva i razvitie khristologii v IV-VIII centuries (The history of confessional division in Syrian Christianity and the development of Christology in the IV–VIII centuries). Moscow, 2016 (Diss.).] Lyashchenko T., priest. 1913 – Lyashchenko T., priest. [ep. Tikhon]. St. Cyril, Archbishop. Alexandrian. His life and work. K., 1913. [Lyashchenko T., priest [bishop Tikhon]. Sv. Kirill, arkhiep. Aleksandriiskii. Ego zhizn’ i deiatelnost’ (St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. His life and work). Kiev, 1913.] Panteleimon (Uspensky), Hierom. 2009 – Review by Hierom. Panteleimon [Uspensky] on the student (candidate) work of V. Dmtiriev “Translation and analysis of the work of St. Cyril of Alexandria Χριστόν" // BV. 2009. No. 8–9. pp. 142–150. [Otzyv ieromonakha Panteleimona [Uspenskogo] na studencheskuiu (kandidatskuiu) rabotu V. Dmtirieva “Perevod i analiz sochineniia sv. Kirilla Aleksandriiskogo Περί τής ορθής "(Hieromonk Panteleimon's [Uspensky] review of V. Dmitiriev’s student (candidate) thesis “Translation and analysis of St. Cyrils of Alexandria work ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν”) // Bogoslovskii Vestnik (Theological Herald). 2009. No. 8–9. P. 142–150.] Spassky 2005 – Spassky A. A. Apollinaris of Laodicea. The historical fate of the works of Apollinaris with a short sketch of his life. Sergiev Posad, 1895 (St. Petersburg, r 2005). [Spassky A. A. Apollinarii Laodikiiskii. Istoricheskaia sud ba sochinenii Apollinariia s kraktim ocherkom ego zhizni (Apollinaris of Laodicea. The historical fate of the works of Apollinarius with a brief outline of his life). Sergiev Posad, 1895 (Saint Petersurg, 2005).] Theodore (Yulaev), Hierom. 2010 – Theodore (Yulaev), hierome. Defense of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s expression “one nature of God the Word incarnate” from the point of view of Orthodox polemicists of the 5th–8th centuries. // BV. 2010. No. 10. pp. 235–292. [Theodor (Yulaev), hieromonk. Zashchita sviatitelem Kirillom Aleksandriiskim vyrazheniia “odna priroda Boga Slova voploshchennaia” s tochki zreniia pravoslavnykh polemistov V-VIII century (St. Cyrils of Alexandria apology of the expression “one nature of God the Word incarnate” from the point of view of Orthodox polemicists of the V-VIII centuries) // Bogoslovskii Vestnik (Theological Herald). 2010. No. 10. P. 235–292.] Theodore (Yulaev), priest. 2010 – Theodore (Yulaev), hierome. Defense of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s expression “one nature of God the Word incarnate” from the point of view of Orthodox polemicists of the 5th–8th centuries. // BV. 2010. No. 10. pp. 235–292. [Theodor (Yulaev), hieromonk. Zashchita sviatitelem Kirillom Aleksandriiskim vyrazheniia “odna priroda Boga Slova voploshchennaia” s tochki zreniia pravoslavnykh polemistov V-VIII century (St. Cyrils of Alexandria apology of the expression “one nature of God the Word incarnate” from the point of view of Orthodox polemicists of the V-VIII centuries) // Bogoslovskii Vestnik (Theological Herald). 2010. No. 10. P. 235–292.] Theodore (Yulaev), priest. 2014 – Theodore (Yulaev), hierome. and others. Cyril, St., Archbishop. Alexandrian // PE. 2014. T. 34. pp. 225–291. [Theodor (Yulaev), hieromonk and others Kirill, sviatitel’, arkhiepiskop Aleksandriiskii (St. Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria // Pravoslavnaia entsiklopedia (Orthodox Encyclopedia). 2014. Volume 34. P. 225–291.] French 2015 – French S. A. “Carellos” // PE. 2015. T. 39. pp. 533–534. [Frantsuzov S. A. “Kerellos” (“Kerellos”) // Pravoslavnaia entsiklopedia (Orthodox Encyclopedia). 2015. Volume 39. P. 533–534.] Du Manoir 1944 – Du Manoir H. Largumentation patristique dans le controverse nestorienne // Idem. Dogme et spiritualite chez saint Cyrille d Alexandrie. P., 1944. P. 454–490. Grillmeier 1993 – Grillmeier A. Le Christ dans la tradition chretienne. L'Eglise de Constantinople au VIsiecle. P., 1993. Lebon 1929 – Lebon J. Les citations patristiques grecques du “Sceau de la foi” // RHE. Lietzmann 1904 – Lietzmann H. Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule. Tubingen, 1904 (Hildescheim - New York, 1970). Loon 2009 – Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Leiden – Boston, 2009. Richard 1951 – Richard M. Les florileges diphysites du V e et du VI e siecle // Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart / Hrsg. A. Grillmeier, H. Bacht. Wurzburg, 1951. Bd. 1. S. 721–748. Dmitriev V., priest 1916 – Translation and analysis of the work of St. Cyril of Alexandria Χριστόν. Course essay by a 71st year student of the priesthood. V. Dmitrieva at the II Department of Patrology for the 1915/1916 academic year // OR RSL. F. 172. K. 235. Unit. 4. 122 pp.). [Perevod i analiz sochineniia sv. Kirilla Aleksandriiskogo Χριστόν. Kursovoe sochinenie studenta 71-go kursa sviashchennika V. Dmitrieva po II-i kafedre Patrologii za 1915/1916 uchebnyi god (Translation and analysis of the work of St. Cyril of Alexandria Περί της ορθης Course essay of priest V. Dmitriev, 71 th course at the II-nd Department of Patrology in the 1915/1916 academic year) // Otdel rukopisei Rossiiskoi Gosudarstvennoi biblioteki (Moskva) (Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library (Moscow)). F. 172. K. 235. Ed. 4. 122 ll.).] John of Damascus, St. 2002 – John of Damascus, St. Source of knowledge / Transl. from ancient gr. and com. D. Afinogenova et al. M., 2002. [Ioann Damaskin, prepodobnyi. Istochnik znaniia (Source of knowledge) / Perevod s drevnegrecheskogo i kommentarii D. Afinogenova i drugikh. Moscow, 2002.] John Chrysostom, St. 1900 – John Chrysostom, St. Creations. St. Petersburg, 1901 (r M., 1999). T. 6. Book. 2. [Ioann Zlatoust, svtiatitel. Creation. Saint Petersburg, 1901 (r Moscow, 1999). Volume 6. Book 2.] Cyril of Alexandria, St. 2014 – Cyril of Alexandria, St. Book of Treasures about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity / Trans. R.V. Yashunsky. St. Petersburg – Krasnodar, 2014. [Kirill Aleksandriiskii, sviatitel. Book sokrovishch o Sviatoi i edinosushchnoi Troitse (Book of treasures on the Holy and consubstantial Trinity) / Translated by R. V. Iashunskogo. Saint Petersburg – Krasnodar, 2014.] Theodore (Yulaev), hierod. 2009 – St. Cyril of Alexandria. About right faith to queens / Transl. from ancient Greek priest Vasily Dmitrieva, editor. translation and entry article by hero. Feodora (Yulaeva) // BV. 2009. No. 8–9. pp. 68–141. [Svtiatitel' Kirill Aleksandriiskii. O pravoi vere k tsaritsam (To queens: on the true faith) / Perevod s drevnegrecheskogo sviashchenika Vasiliia Dmitrieva, redaktsiia perevoda i vstupitel'naia stat'ia ierodiakona Feodora (Iulaeva) // Bogoslovskii Vestnik (Theological Herald). 2009. No. 8–9. P. 68–141.] Yulaev 2006 – St. Cyril of Alexandria. Dialogue on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten / Trans. from ancient Greek, intro. article and notes K. B. Yulaeva) // BV. 2006. No. 5–6. pp. 65–150. [Svtiatitel' Kirill Aleksandriiskii. Dialog o vochelovechenii Edinorodnogo (Dialogue on the incarnation of the Only-Begotten) / Perevod s drevnegrecheskogo, vstupitel'naia stat'ia i primechaniia K. B. Iulaeva) // Bogoslovskii Vestnik (Theological Herald). 2006. No. 5–6. P. 65–150.] Aubert 1638 – S. P. N. Cyrilli Alexandriae archiepiscopi opera / Ed. J. Aubert. P., 1638. T. 5. Pars 2. Kotter 1973 – Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos II / Hrsg. B. Kotter B., 1973 (PTS 12). Durand 1964 – Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Deux dialogues christologiques / Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par G.-M. de Durand P., 1964. (SC 97). Gallay 1974 – Gregoire de Nazianze. Lettres theologiques /Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par P. Gallay P., 1974 (SC 208). Harduinus 1715 – Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, ac constitutions summorum pontificum / Ed. J. Harduinus. P., 1715. Hespel 1955 – Hespel R. Le Florilege cyrillien refute par Severe d'Antioche. Etude et edition critique. Louvain, 1955. Holmes, Parsons 1827 – Vetus Testamentum Graecum cum variis lectionibus / Ed. R. Holmes, R. Parsons. Oxford, 1827. T. 4. Labbeus, Cossartius 1671 – Sacrosancta concilia ad reginam editionem exacta / Ed. Ph. Lab-beus, G. Cossartius. T. 3. P., 1671 (T. 3 2. Venetiis, 1728). Lebon 1933 – Lebon J. Discours d'Atticus de Constantinople “Sur la Sainte Mere de Dieu” // Mus. 1933. Vol. 46. ​​P. 167–202. Mansi 1760 – Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio / Ed. J.-D. Mansi. T. 4. Florentiae, 1760. Martin 1941 – Martin Ch. Un florilege grec d'Homelies christologiques des IV e et V e siecles sur la Nativite (P. Gr. 1491) // Mus. 1941. Vol. 54. P. 17–57. Pusey 1868 – S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in XII prophetas / Ed. Ph. E. Pusey. Oxford, 1868 (Br., r 1965). Vol. 1. Pusey 1872 – S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Johannis Euangelium. Accedunt fragmenta varia necnon tractatus ad Tiberium diaconum duo / Ed. Ph. E. Pusey. Oxford, 1872 (Br., r 1965). Vol. 2. Pusey 1877 – S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini De recta fide ad imperatorem, De Incarnatione Unigeniti dialogus, De recta fide ad principissas, De recta fide ad augustas, Quod unus Christu dialogus, Apologeticus ad imperatorem / Ed. Ph. E. Pusey. Oxford, 1877 (Br., r 1965). Rucker 1933 – Rucker I. Florilegium Edessenum anonymum (syriace ante 562). Munchen, 1933. Ter-Mekerttschian, Ter-Minassiantz 1908 – Ter-Mekerttschian K., Ter-Minassiantz E. Timotheus Alurus, des Patriarchen von Alexandrien. Widerlegung der auf der Synode zu Chalcedon festgesetzten Lehre. Leipzig, 1908. Weischer 1980 – Weischer B. M. Das christologische Florilegium in Querellos II // Oriens Shristianus. 1980. Bd. 64. S. 109–135. Weischer 1993 – Querellos II: Der Prosphonetikos “Uber den rechten Glauben” des Ky-rillos von Alexandrien an Arkadia und Marina. Teil I: Einleitung mit christologischem Florilegium / Hrsg. B. M. Weischer. Stuttgart, 1993 (Athiopistische Forschungen 31). St. Cyril of Alexandria. To Queens: on the true faith. Part I (chapter 1–20) / Translation by priest Basil Dmitriev. Edition, preface and commentary by hieromonk Theodore (Yulaev) This publication constitutes the Russian translation of the introductory part of the extensive polemical treatise of St. Cyril of Alexandria, part of the group of dogmatic messages “On the Right Faith”. The foreword informs about the circumstances of the writing of the treatise, examines the content of its introductory part and gives a brief overview of its publications and ancient translations. In the comments to the translation, special attention is paid to the attribution of works quoted by the saint in patristic florilegia, which is presented in the introductory part of the treatise. Theodore (Yulaev), hierod. 2009. pp. 68–69. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Oratio ad Theodosium imperatorem de recta fide (CPG 5218) // ACO 1, 1 (1). P. 42–72. Rus. trans.: Dmitriev V., priest. 1916. pp. 13–62. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De incarnatione unigeniti (CPG 5227) // Durand 1964. P. 188–301. Rus. Per.: Yulaev 2006. P. 85–150. Our publication provides an exhaustive list of discrepancies between these two works, which allows us to judge quite fully the contents of the book “On the Right Faith to the Emperor Theodosius,” with the exception of its introductory part (chap. 1–4), specially written by the saint to address the emperor and which has no parallel with the dialogue “On the Incarnation of the Only Begotten.” Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Oratio ad ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam augustas de fide (CPG 5220) // ACO 1, 1 (5). P. 26–61. Rus. Transl.: Theodore (Yulaev), Herod. 2009. pp. 83–141. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Oratio ad ad Arcadiam et Marinam augustas de fide (CPG 5219). Lyashchenko T., priest. 1913. pp. 280–281. Florilegium Cyrillianum. Cap. 156 // Hespel 1955. P. 178. Florilegium Cyrillianum. Cap. 165 // Hespel 1955. P. 180–181. Previously, we made an inaccuracy by pointing out that the names of the recipients of the books to the queens were reported by John of Caesarea (Yulaev 2006. P. 66. Note 6; Theodore (Yulaev), Jer. 2014. P. 245). Although such a statement is found in scientific literature, it only reflects the widespread hypothesis that it was John of Caesarea who was the compiler of the “Cyril Collection”. However, the publisher of this florilegium, R. Espel, who specifically focused on the question of its origin, argued with argument that there is no need to talk about the authorship of John of Caesarea. The florilegium was compiled at the end of the 5th century. in Alexandria by unknown persons (Hespel 1955. P. 7–51). This view seems to be generally accepted at present (see Grillmeier 1993, p. 41). Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Oratio ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam augustas de fide. Cap. 4 // ACO 1, 1 (5). P. 28. Rus. Transl.: Theodore (Yulaev), Herod. 2009. P. 86. “For what was the reason for writing something else to us and to my most pious wife Augusta Eudoxia, and another to my sister the most pious Augusta Pulcheria?” (Sacra ad Cyrillum Alexandrinum (CPG 8652) // ACO 1, 1 (1). P. 73. Russian translation: DVS 1910. P. 209). Lyashchenko T., priest. 1913. pp. 281–283. Panteleimon (Uspensky), Hierom. 2009. pp. 144–146. This order is quite peculiar and not identical with that adopted in modern editions of the New Testament (see: Theodore (Yulaev), Herod. 2009. P. 70. Note 10). The saint used a similar form in the 32nd book of his early triadological work “Treasure” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali trinitate (CPG 5215) // PG 75, 453 A–565 A. Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. 2014, pp. 262–325). The themes of the two works are also close: if in the 32nd book of “Treasures” the saint proves that the Son is God by nature, then most of the chapters of the main part of the book “On Right Faith to the Princesses” are devoted to affirming the thesis: “Christ is God.” Du Manoir 1944. P. 457; Richard 1951. S. 722. More details about the attribution of each of the quotes given by the saint are stated in the notes to the translation. An analysis of the content of the main part of the book “On Right Faith to the Princesses” is expected to be given upon publication of its Russian translation in the next issue of The Theological Messenger. Acta oecumenicae tertiae synodi Ephesi habitae. [Heidelberg] E Typographeio Hieronymi Commelini, 1591. P. 30–68; Labbeus, Cossartius 1671. Col. 105–225 (T. 32. Venetiis, 1728. Col. 672–788); Mansi 1760. Col. 680–801. See: Bondach 2009. pp. 507–508, 541 Aubert 1638. P. 42–127; PG 76, 1201–1336; Pusey 1877. pp. 154–262. Florilegium Cyrillianum. Cap. 156–164 // Hespel 1955. P. 178–180. Accordingly, they are also present in the treatise of Severus of Antioch “Philalethes”, preserved in the Syriac translation, where this florilegium is fully included (Severus Antiochenus. Philaletes // Severe d' Antioche. Le Philalethe / Ed. R. Hespel (CSCO 133). Louvain, 1952. P. 89–91), moreover, one of the passages is accompanied by Severus with a special commentary (Ibid. P. 333–334). The passages included in the “Kirillov Collection” of the book “On Right Faith to the Princesses” are indicated in the notes to the translation. See the note below for the relevant translation passage (chapter 20). In the collection of dogmatic content "Carellos", containing mainly the works of St. Cyril of Alexandria, as well as other authors. It is usually believed that the first part of this collection, including the books “On the Right Faith,” was translated from Greek at the turn of the 5th and 6th centuries. But there is also a hypothesis about the original translation of this collection ca. X century from Arabic (Frantsuzov 2015. pp. 533–534). The introductory part of the book “On the Right Faith to the Princesses” with the Christological florilegion in its composition from this collection was published (Weischer 1993), and even earlier - a separate florilegium, accompanied by a German translation (Weischer 1980. S. 109–135). In an important monument for the Armenian theological tradition, known as “The Seal of Faith,” along with other patristic evidence, a translation of the main part of the book “On Right Faith to the Princesses” is presented (incompletely and with a change in the order of chapters) (Lebon 1929. P. 10–12). This anthology was compiled under Catholicos Komitas Akhtsetsi (612–628) and was preserved in a 13th-century manuscript, partially rewritten in 1629. It was discovered in 1911 and published in 1914 in Etchmiadzin by Bishop. Karapet Ter-Mkrtchyan (Ibid. P. 5–6). In addition, fragments of the book “On Right Faith to the Princesses” in the Armenian translation were preserved as part of Timothy Aelurus’s extensive polemical treatise “Against those who speak of two natures” (Timotheus Aelurus. Contra eos qui dicunt duas naturas (CPG 5475) // Ter-Mekerttschian, Ter-Minassiantz 1908). There are also most of the quotations from the patristic florilegium, which could well have been borrowed from this work by St. Kirill. Collectio Vaticana. Codex Vaticanus gr. 830(s. xv); Collectio Segueriana. Codex Parisinus Coisilianus 32 (s. XI); Collectionis Seguerianae recensio altera. Codex Monacensis 115 (s. XVI). Codex Monacensis [Fuggeranus] 116 (s. XVI); Collectio Atheniensis. Codex Atheniensis societatis archaelogicae Christianae 9 (s. XII) (ACO 1, 1 (5). P. 2). Dmitriev V., priest 1916. pp. 63–160. For this translation, see: Panteleimon (Uspensky), Hierom. 2009; Theodore (Yulaev), hierod. 2009. pp. 79–81. The following editions of texts and translations of the Holy Scriptures were used: 1. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes edidit Alfred Rahlfs. Editio nona. Vol. 1–2. Stuttgart, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as Rahlfs). 2. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. Ed. 27. 2001 (NA). 3. The New Testament in the original Greek. Byzantine Textform/Ed. M. A. Robinson, W. G. Pierpont. Southborough, Massachusetts, 2005 (RP). 4. Bible. Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Anniversary publication dedicated to the two thousandth anniversary of the Nativity of Christ. M., 1999 (Syn.). 5. The Bible, that is, the Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments with parallel passages. Second embossing. St. Petersburg, 1900 [M., r 2009] (Elizav.). 6. Books of the Old Testament translated by P. A. Yungerov. Great prophets. M., 2006. 7. Books of the Old Testament translated by P. A. Yungerov. Prophet Daniel. Minor prophets. M., 2006. 8. Books of the Old Testament translated by P. A. Yungerov. Educational books. M., 2012 (Yungerov). 9. New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ. Translation from the Greek original, ed. Ep. Cassian (Bezobrazova). M., 1997 (Bishop Cassian). Here and below, readings added to the text by the ACO publisher are given in angle brackets. Εὕρημα. Actually, the “find”, “discovery”, is due not to chance, but to mental activity (LSJ. P. 729). Χαρακτήρ. Wed: image (Sin.), imprint (Bishop Cassian). Wed: 1 Cor. 8, 6; Heb. 2, 10. σαρκικῶς. Found in the 1st anathematism of St. Cyril against Nestorius, the assertion that the Holy Virgin “carnally” gave birth to God the Word, caused criticism from Andrei Samosatsky, who spoke on behalf of the “Eastern bishops.” He saw this as a denial of a miraculous and “God-worthy” birth. Answering him, the saint explained that “carnally” indicates the true Incarnation and is identical to the expression “according to the flesh” (κατὰ σάρκα) (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Apologia XII capitulorum contra Orientales. Cap. 18 (CPG 5221) // ACO 1, 1 (7). P. 34, 36, 37. Russian translation: DVS 1892. P. 24, 26:27). Victory (νίκη): litigation (δίκη) (Jungers = Rahlfs). The saint usually quotes this passage from the prophet Hosea in exactly this form (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Glaphyra in Pentateuchun. In Numerum // PG 69, 625 C; Commentarius in Isaiam prophetam. Lib. 3, 1 // PG 70, 564 B; Commentarius in XII prophetas minores. In Oseam. T. 7 // Pusey 1868. P. 272; Epistula paschalis 24, 4 // PG 77, 900 C), and such a reading seems to be found only in him (see: Holmes, Parsons 1827). He probably involuntarily mixed a quotation from the prophet Hosea with its paraphrase given by St. Paul (1 Cor. 15:55). Wed: “Death! where is your sting? hell! where is your victory? (τὸ νῖκος)" (Syn. = RP); “Where, death, is your victory (τὸ νῖκος)? Where, death, is your sting? (Bishop Cassian = NA). The saint uses the satisfactory price of the atoning sacrifice of Christ as an indisputable common place as an argument in favor of His Divine dignity and His unity, also in ch. 154 of this book (ACO 1, 1 (5). P. 100) and in the book “On the right faith to the princesses” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Oratio ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam. Cap. 7 // Ibid. P. 29. Russian translation: Feodor (Yulaev), Hierom. 2009. P. 87–88). In both cases this is the interpretation of the words of St. Paul: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Gal. 3:13). In a more concise form, the saint gives this quote in “Defense of 12 Chapters against the Eastern Bishops” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Apologia XII capitulorum contra Orientales // ACO 1, 1 (7). P. 48. Russian translation: DVS 1892. P. 37). This work is now known as the “Epistle to Jovian” by Apollinaris of Laodicea (Apollinaris Laodicenus. Ad Iovianum (CPG 3665) // Lietzmann 1904. S. 250–253) and as one of the Apollinarian forgeries. That in reality its author is not St. Athanasius, and the "arch-hierasiarch" Apollinaris, is now considered indisputable. A. Spassky and G. Litzmann proved this by systematizing the arguments of a number of authors of the 6th-7th centuries who argued in favor of the Council of Chalcedon (Spassky 2005. pp. 183–196; Lietzmann 1904. pp. 119–121). Among the ancient Orthodox authors there was no complete unanimity on this score: some, like St. Cyril, they believed him to be the true creation of St. Athanasius the Great, and others - that it was written by Apollinaris, agreeing, however, that the teaching set forth here fully admits of Orthodox understanding (Theodore (Yulaev), Hierom. 2010. pp. 253–270). Timothy Elur quotes him in the above-mentioned work (Ter-Mekerttschian, Ter-Minassiantz 1908. S. 133:187). For us (= Sin., RP) < (Bishop Cassian, NA). I am God: I am the Lord your God (Junger, Rahlfs). 1 Cor. 15, 54–55. See above: Note. 46. St. Atticus, Patriarch of Constantinople (405–425). His homily for the Nativity is quoted (Atticus Constantinopolitanus. Homilia in navitatem (CPG 5650). These are the only known fragments of the original Greek text of the homily, which is preserved in the Syriac translation (Lebon 1933. P. 176–186), where it is inscribed with the name of St. Atticus and has the title “On the Holy Mother of God.” The testimony of St. Cyril is the strongest argument in favor of the authorship of St. Atticus (Ibid. P. 173). The saint cites both of these fragments in “Defense of 12 Chapters against the Eastern Bishops” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Apologia XII capitulorum contra Orientales. Cap. 50 // ACO 1, 1 (7). P. 45. Russian translation: DVS 1892. P. 34). In addition, they were included in the patristic florilegium read at the 6th act of the Council of Ephesus (Gesta Ephesina. Actio VI (CPG 8721) // ACO 1, 1 (7). P. 94. Both fragments are presented in Timothy Elur (Ter-Mekerttschian, Ter-Minassiantz 1908. S. 30) and in). Syriac translation by Sevirus of Antioch (Lebon 1933. P. 195–198). This fragment is missing from the Syriac version of the homily (Ibid. pp. 172–173). Ἐκένωσε. Wed: “humiliated” (Sin., Bishop Cassian); “belittled” (Elizab.). Antiochus, bishop Ptolemais of Palestine (†408). Only fragments of his writings survive (CPG 4296–4297). Brought by St. Cyril also included the passage in the anti-Nestorian Syriac “Edessa Florilegium” of Monophysite origin, preserved in a manuscript of the 6th century. (Rucker 1933, pp. 52–53). In the Greek Christological florilegium, available in a manuscript of the 9th-10th centuries. and including the works of authors of the 4th-5th centuries, included a fragment of the homily of bishop. Antioch at Christmas (Martin 1941. P. 56–57), but the quoted St. Kirill has no words there (Loon 2009. P. 435). Ὤδινε. The imperfect of the verb ὠδίνω, usually meaning “to give birth in pain” or simply “to endure pain” (LSJ. P. 2030). The saint himself in the dialogue “On the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” condemns those who do not consider it necessary to talk about labor pains (ὠδῖνα) at ​​the birth of the Only Begotten (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De incarnatione unigeniti // Durand 1964. P. 204. Russian translation: Yulaev 2006. P. 93). That is, he is ready to use in relation to this birth the noun ἡ ὠδίς (ὠδίν), which has the same root as the verb ὠδίνω, meaning actually “birth pangs,” “suffering,” or the fruit of birth pangs (LSJ. P. 2030–2031). Based on this, the publisher of the dialogue, J.-M. Durand suggested that the saint did not share the teaching about the painless birth of the Holy Virgin (Durand 1964. P. 204. Note 1). But it can be noted that in his works this same noun is also applied to the birth of the Son by the Father, who is obviously impassive (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem. Lib. 6, 1 // Pusey 1872. P. 232. In Russian translation by M. Muretov: “generation”. See: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. Book 3. M., 2002. P. 357). That is, he uses this noun in the sense of a real, and not an imaginary birth, which is not necessarily accompanied by suffering. The same can be said about the meaning of the verb ὠδίνω in the quote he gave. In the writings of St. Prokla and the blessed one Theodoret, when indicating birth from the Holy Virgin, uses the expression ἀλόχευτος ὠδίν, that is, “birth without pain” (PGL. P. 79:1555), which shows that the noun ἡ ὠδίν can also indicate a birth not accompanied by pain. Moreover, at least once, St. Cyril directly denies the torment of the Holy Virgin during childbirth. In the 3rd letter to Nestorius, he writes that at the birth of the Word from Her, “the oath finally ceased over the entire human race” and, in particular, the sentence was abolished: “you will give birth to children in pain” (Gen. 3:16), pronounced by God to the foremother Eve (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistula 17, 11 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). P. 40; Russian translation: DVS 1910. P. 197). See: Theodore (Yulaev), Hierom. 2014. P. 279. This is the work of St. The Amphilochion of Iconium has been preserved in fragments (CPG 3245 (3)), in Greek - exclusively in the transmission of St. Kirill. Two other fragments were read at the 6th Act of the Council of Ephesus (Gesta Ephesina. Actio VI // ACO 1, 1 (7). P. 94–95). The passage quoted here is from Timothy Elur (Ter-Mekerttschian, Ter-Minassiantz 1908. S. 32). Bishop of the late 4th century, from whose writings three small fragments have survived (Ammon Adrianopolitanus. Fragmenta (CPG 2540)). Quoted St. Cyril, passages in Greek are available only here (Loon 2009. P. 435. Note 71). The first of these is also represented in the Syriac Florilegium of Edessa (Rucker 1933, p. 53). Johannes Chrysostomus. In natalem Christi diem [Dub.] (CPG 4560). Timothy Elur also quotes these fragments (Ter-Mekerttschian, Ter-Minassiantz 1908. S. 28:194). The belonging of this homily to Chrysostom is questioned. It exists in many editions, one of which was published under the name of St. Athanasius of Alexandria and its attribution remains an unresolved critical problem (Voicu 2010, p. 201). It is curious that in the polemic with Nestorius, among the paternal authorities, St. Cyril also places Chrysostom, although he was a participant in the Council of Oak that condemned him (403) and back in 415 in correspondence with St. Atticus of Constantinople categorically refused to include his name in the diptychs of the Alexandrian Church (Loon 2009. P. 435. Note 72). This was also noted by Nestorius, who saw in his struggle with the Alexandrian archbishop a mirror reflection of the clash between Chrysostom and Theophilus of Alexandria. He addresses St. in absentia. Kirill in a conversation said on Dec. 430 in the capital: “I am silent about John, whom you now honor even against your will” (Nestorius. Sermo XVIII (CPG 5707) // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 5 (1). P. 40). Johannes Chrysostomus. In natalem Christi diem [Dub.] // PG 56, 385–386. Rus. trans.: Works of St. John Chrysostom, archbishop. Constantinople, in Russian translation. T. 6. Book. 2. St. Petersburg, 1900 (RM, 1999). P. 692 (as amended). Ibid. Col. 389. Rus. trans.: Ibid. P. 695 (as amended). The reference is to Sevirian of Gaval (d. after 408), but the quoted fragment is included in the book “On the Incarnation of God the Word and Against the Arians,” inscribed with the name of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, which is currently considered to be the work of Marcellus Ancyra (d. c. 374) (Marcellus Ancyranus. De incarnatione et contra Arianos (CPG 2806). Cap. 8 // PG 26, 996 A). It is interesting that in place of the words “from the Virgin Mary” in the printed edition of this work of Pseudo-Athanasius there is “from the Virgin Mary theotokos” (Loon 2009. P. 435. Note 73), although one can be sure that in this context the saint would not fail to use the term “Theotokos” once again. Like the work of Severian Gavalsky, this passage is also quoted by Timothy Elur (Ter-Mekerttschian, Ter-Minassiantz 1908.S. 28). Vitalis apollinarista. De fide (CPG 3705) // Lietzmann 1904. S. 273. This text, preserved in Greek only by St. Cyril of Alexandria, is now identified with the confession of faith which Vitaliy II, Patriarch of Antioch (d. c. 375), presented to the holy Pope Damasus I (Du Manoir 1944, p. 475). Vitaly was Orthodox, but later became a follower of Apollinaris of Laodicea. According to the testimony of St. Gregory the Theologian, his confession of faith was approved by the holy Pope Damasus and St. himself. Gregory, but later, in view of Vitaly’s revealed commitment to Apollinarism, he was condemned by the pope (Gregorius Nazianzenus. Epistula 102, 5–16 // Gallay 1974. P., 1974. P. 72–78). In the Armenian translation it is quoted from Timothy Elur (Ter-Mekerttschian, Ter-Minassiantz 1908. S. 7:191) and in the mentioned anthology “The Seal of Faith” (Lebon 1929. P. 30), and in both cases the author of the work is called “Vitaliy, Archbishop. Roman" (CPG 3705). Theophilus Alexandrinus. Epistula fest. 16 (CPG 2585). The famous Easter message of 401, Archbishop. Theophilus of Alexandria, directed against the Origenists. In Greek it has survived only in fragments, but there is a complete Latin translation of it, made by Bl. Hieronimus (Hieronimus. Epistula 96 // S. Eusebii Hieronymi opera (Sect. I pars II). Epistularum pars II (Leipzig, 1912. P. 159–181 (CSEL 55)). This fragment is also given by Timothy Elur (Ter-Mekerttschian, Ter-Minassiantz 1908. S. 30). The Latin translation (Ibid. P. 161) suggests that this is a subordinate clause. The main sentence here is: “And the prophet himself proclaims a song...” (Elipse propheta canticum signat), that is, the psalm verse cited immediately above: “You have dominion over the power of the sea, You tame its rising waves” (Ps. 89:10). This fragment, starting with the words: “and He spoke to the disciples,” was included in “Cyril’s collection” (Florilegium Cyrillianum. Cap. 156 // Hespel 1955. P. 178), opening a series of quotes given in it from the book “On the right faith to the princesses,” and the affiliation of these words to Theophilus of Alexandria is not reported. His (= NA): < (Elizab., Sin., Bishop Cassian). The term συνάφεια, as used by Nestorius St. Cyril saw one of the main signs of his heresy and became one of the key ones in the controversy. E. Zabolotny, with reference to G. Lampe’s dictionary (PGL. P. 1308–1310), notes that “contrary to popular belief, this concept in the theological (including Christological) context means not contact, but an extremely close union” (Zabolotny 2016. P. 108). He believes its translation as “contact”, “conjugation” or “connection” is not entirely correct (Ibid. P. 20:26), preferring to render it in Russian as “connection” (Ibid. P. 108, 169, 354:369) or as “union” (Ibid. P. 110:113). According to the remark of G. Loon (Loon 2009. P. 436. Note 76), St. Cyril here implies the words of the heresiarch, which he refuted in the 2nd book “Against the Blasphemy of Nestorius”: “When Divine Scripture intends to speak either about the birth of Christ from the bl. Virgin, or about death, it does not seem to place (the name) “God” anywhere, but either “Christ”, or “Son”, or “Lord”, since these three (names) are the designation of two natures, sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Libri V contra Nestorium (CPG 5217). Lib. 2, 2 // ACO 1, 1 (6). P. 36). St. John of Damascus in his “Accurate Exposition of the Faith” cites this fragment, beginning with the words “the name Christ befits,” in confirmation of the fact that “the Word of God became Christ from the time it dwelt in the womb of the Holy Ever-Virgin and, unchanged, became flesh, and the flesh was anointed by the Divinity” (Iohannes Damascenus. Expositio fidei (CPG 8043). Cap. 79 // Kotter 1973. S. 177–178. Russian translation: Works of St. John of Damascus. Source of knowledge / Translated from ancient Greek and comments by D. Afinogenov and others. M., 2002. P. 290). Here is St. John also quotes the book of St. Cyril “On Right Faith to Emperor Theodosius” (Ibid.): “After all, I personally affirm that neither the Word from God without humanity, nor the church born of a woman should be called Christ Jesus, if it has not become one with the Word. For by Christ is conceived the Word from God, inexpressibly united with humanity in economic unity” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Oratio ad Theodosium imperatorem de recta fide. Cap. 28 // ACO 1, 1 (1). P. 60). These words repeat without changes the corresponding place in the dialogue “On the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De incarnatione unigeniti // Durand 1964. P. 250. Russian translation: Yulaev 2006. P. 121), that is, the saint, before the Nestorian polemic, had already used this argument against an earlier form of Christological dualism. This fragment, beginning with the words: “But I think it is good to testify in advance,” is included in “Cyril’s Collection” (Florilegium Cyrillianum. Cap. 157 // Hespel 1955. P. 178–179).