Soteriological aspects of the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria in Commentaries on the Gospel of John

Contents 1. Introduction. 2. Brief overview of the life and works of St. Cyril. 2.1. Service of St. Kirill before his consecration to the episcopate. 2.2. Brief background and dedication to St. Cyril to the See of Alexandria. 2.3. Fight St. Cyril for Orthodoxy against Nestorius. 2.4. Reaction to the actions of St. Cyril in the West, Western contribution to the fight against Nestorius. 2.5. Prerequisites for the convening of the Third Ecumenical Council. 2.6. Convocation of the Third Ecumenical Council. 2.7. Reconciliation with the “Easterns” 433 years. 3. Creations of St. Kirill. 4. Terminology of the era of Christological disputes. 5. Man before and after the incarnation of the Word of God. 5.1. The original state of man. 5.2. God's eternal plan of salvation. 5.3. The state of man after the Incarnation. 5.4. Restoring the Image of God to its original state. Christ as the restorer of fallen human nature. 5.5. Soteriological perception of the Incarnation. 6. Personality of God the Word. 6.1. Consistency of the Son with the Father, equality of the Son and the Father. 6.2. Unity of the Son. 6.3. Distinction between the two natures in Christ. 6.4. Christological meaning of the Eucharist. 6.5. The formula µία φύσις, the possibility of its Orthodox understanding. 6.6. Сommunicatio idiomatum as an explanation of the image of the union of two natures in Christ. 7. Conclusions. Purpose of the work: Having analyzed the texts of the Commentaries on the Gospel of John by St. Cyril of Alexandria, drawing on the works of domestic and foreign theologians, to trace and identify the soteriological aspects of his teaching on the Incarnation. What we want to prove: Having traced the soteriological aspects of St. Cyril’s teaching on the Incarnation in a voluminous work written mainly before the Nestorian controversy, we can conclude that St. Cyril made a huge contribution to the development of Christology. Interpretations of the Gospel of John make it possible to understand even some ambiguous wording. Thus, Saint Cyril is not an opponent, but a predecessor of the Council of Chalcedon and the Christological teaching of the Church of the 6th century. Like no other dogmatic system of the Orthodox Church, Christology has the most pronounced application to the real spiritual life of a Christian. To be a Christian does not just mean keeping the commandments, it means believing in Christ and confessing the mystery of salvation revealed on the Cross. It is in the question of “two and one” in Christ that the Church reveals questions about God in His relation to the world and man and about the salvation of man as the main questions of Christian dogma. The creation of man in the image and likeness of God means that there is a fundamental possibility of communion with divine grace through Christ, participating in the Sacraments of the Church founded by Christ himself. This process of becoming like God is called deification in Orthodoxy. We can say that the Creator’s eternal plan for creation means that we are called to deification. But deification became possible solely because God Himself became man in order to unite what was divided and reveal the foundations through which the unity of the Creator and the creature could be realized. The Divine Logos assumed the fullness of human nature because of us and for our sake, being similar to us in everything except sin. The Incarnation in itself partly revived man and resurrected his nature. Grace was not simply poured out on man in the Incarnation, but human nature was received into unity “according to hypostasis” with God Himself. The fathers of the early Church unanimously saw in such a person’s achievement of communion of Divine Life the entire essence of salvation. What is saved is what is united with God, and what is not united cannot be saved at all. It was this thought that was the main motive of all the theology of the first centuries: in St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Athanasius the Great, the Cappadocians (this idea was most clearly formulated by St. Gregory the Theologian in a polemic with Apollinaris), St. Cyril of Alexandria, and later Ven. Maximus the Confessor and St. John of Damascus. We understand the transformation of man, which also means the transformation of all creation (Rom. 8:19–22), eschatologically. The person of Christ, the fullness of His humanity and the lives of the saints are a prototype of the transformation of the entire cosmos, although its full realization remains to be seen. Nevertheless, transfiguration is already an experience accessible to every Christian, to which he especially becomes involved at the Liturgy. “This experience alone can give purpose and value to the history of the human race,” writes Archpriest. John Meyendorff 1. St. Cyril of Alexandria made an invaluable contribution to the understanding of the Mystery of the Incarnation. It is in his works that we find explanations of the most commonly used concepts and terminology of Orthodox Eastern theology. So, it was at St. Cyril can be found explaining how we inherit Adam’s sin (Adam could not pass on to us what he himself ceased to have); that we are called to become gods by grace, but not by essence; on the correct use of expressions relating to the various natures of God the Word (communicatio idiomatum). In all courses of theology and church history, entire chapters and sections are devoted to St. Cyril, mainly related to the period of Nestorian disputes. The well-known work of A. Mirolyubov “Sermons of St. Cyril of Alexandria”, published in Kyiv in 1899 and an article by A.I. Brilliantov “The Origin of Monophysitism” (largely outdated, according to priest O. Davydenkov - 2, published in 1906. The theologians of the Parisian school and their followers devote one chapter to St. Cyril in their patrol courses: Fr. Georgy Florovsky in 3, prot. John Meyendorff in 4 and 5. Among the recent works, books 6, 7 and numerous reports at PSTBI conferences by priest Oleg Davydenkov, dedicated to the Christology and soteriology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, should be noted. However, it should be noted that the theological creativity of St. Cyril is not so brightly illuminated in Russian-language theological literature in comparison with the legacy of the great Cappadocians and later fathers - Rev. Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus. Thus, in the collection “Theology and Vision of God” by Vl. Lossky 8 and Olivier Clément's "Origins" 9 St. Cyril is mentioned only a few times. This situation forces us to turn to English-language studies of the theology of St. Cyril. Of particular note is Lars Cohen’s dissertation “The Saving Passion” 10 with the subtitle “The Doctrine of the Incarnation and Soteriology in Commentaries on the Gospel of John Cyril of Alexandria,” in which, after a brief description of the life and works of St. Cyril, the state of man before and after the Incarnation, the Personality of the God-Man, the purpose of the Incarnation, and the kenosis of God the Word are described in detail. The need for a detailed theological analysis of the Commentaries on the Gospel of John is especially noted - after all, the main points of his Christology (the lack of polemical emphasis, according to L. Cohen, allows for a deeper understanding of the thought of St. Cyril) can be traced in these Commentaries, the study of which has not been given due attention. A similar point of view is shared by the Franciscan Thomas Vanandy in his work “Cyril and the Sacrament of the Incarnation” in the 2000 collection “The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Critical review". He notes the deep connection between St. Cyril's Christology and his soteriology precisely in Cyril's early commentaries 11 . The salvation of man is conceived precisely as deification, to which Daniel Keating’s article “Deification in Cyril: Perception of Divine Life” in the same collection is also devoted. It should be mentioned that the mentioned Western authors adhere to the views of the Eastern Orthodox Church on such theological concepts as original sin and atonement, which, thanks to the study of the theology of St. Cyril, they think in an ontological rather than legal category. Of particular note is also the work of Stephen McKinion, “Words, Images and the Mystery of Christ – A Reconstruction of the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria 12.” The author of the monograph undertakes a detailed analysis of the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, paying attention to both the polemical aspect of his theology (the fight against the heresies of Apollinarianism and Nestorianism), and the positive disclosure of his Christological system, more precisely, the image of Christ, which he described in his creations. MacKinion concludes that St. Cyril proceeded from fundamentally different premises than his opponents (Apollinaris and Nestorius). His vision of Christological problems was primarily soteriological and not logical; he was not interested in the philosophical problems of the “coexistence of two perfect ones,” divinity and humanity in Christ, but in the reality of our salvation through the Incarnation. And the main flaw in the teaching of Nestorius, according to St. Cyril is a denial of the saving suffering of God the Word. The images used by St. Cyril, to illustrate the co-existence of deity and humanity in the person of Christ (for example, the soul and body in man), are not at all intended to reveal the method of unification of natures, which is recognized as ineffable, but only point to the real unity of the Person of the God-man in the Incarnation. Despite the fact that the author is a Protestant by religion, it should be noted that, in general, he quite adequately reproduces the theology of St. Kirill. However, among Western researchers there is another, more philosophical approach to the work of St. Cyril. Thus, Ruth Siddals in her work “Logic and Christology in Cyril of Alexandria” 13, contrary to the opinion of some researchers (Liebeart, Jousassard, Young), puts forward the thesis about Cyril’s good acquaintance with the logical-philosophical ancient tradition, which was manifested in his frequent use of characteristic terminology and methods (for example, in polemics against Arianism). In particular, according to the author, St. Cyril used the distinction, borrowed from Aristotle’s Categories, between objects that can exist independently and objects that exist only in some subject (for example, a color). It is known that Porphyry, continuing Aristotle, distinguishes qualities into: 1) belonging to the subject by nature and essentially, 2) acquired (accidents). Saint Cyril uses this scheme in his criticism of Arian Christology, according to which in Christ human properties actually appeared as natural, and Divine properties as acquired. According to R. Siddals, Cyril simply “inverts” the Arian scheme: in Christ, divine properties appear as natural qualities, and human ones as accidents. Therefore, in her opinion, those who blame Kirill for “defective” anthropology are right. Interestingly, the above-mentioned authors do not accept this approach (see, for example, 14). 2. Brief overview of the life and works of St. Cyril. 2.1. Service of St. Kirill before his consecration to the episcopate. St. Cyril was most likely born in Alexandria no later than the late 70s of the 4th century. Alexandria at that time was the second city of the Roman Empire. It was often deservedly called the capital of Greco-Roman culture. Constantinople at that time had not yet acquired the importance that it later had. Alexandria was experiencing its last heyday. On the one hand, the authority of Constantinople grew due to the prominent place of Constantinople in general imperial affairs. On the other hand, this growth was stimulated by Alexandria with its desire to dominate the ecclesiastical affairs of the Eastern Empire. It is on the example of the confrontation between Constantinople and Alexandria that many historians illuminate the process of formation of Patriarchates as the highest level of church government. St. Kirill received an excellent education - both secular and theological. Before he became Archbishop of Alexandria, he was already involved in church affairs, because he was a deacon under his uncle, Archbishop Theophilos of Alexandria. Having received a comprehensive education, Saint Cyril initially labored not only under the leadership of his uncle, Archbishop Theophilos, but also spent several years among the ascetics of the Nitrian desert. His presbytery consecration supposedly dates back to 405. 2.2. Brief background and dedication to St. Cyril to the See of Alexandria. In Alexandria there was a kind of dynasty of archbishops - the nephew succeeded the uncle. Historically, the archbishop had enormous weight not only in church affairs, but also in secular ones. As for church life, all other bishops unconditionally obeyed their first hierarch of Alexandria. In the eastern part of the Christian world, the Archbishop of Alexandria is the only hierarch who, from ancient times to our time, bears the title of pope. The sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea reads: “Let the ancient customs accepted in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis be preserved, so that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these territories, since this is the custom of the bishop of Rome, just as in Antioch; however, in the remaining dioceses, let the advantages of the churches of the metropolitan cities be observed..." 15. Thus, the Bishop of Alexandria in the Christian Empire, unlike many other metropolitans, receives exclusive rights - to dispose of the territory of not one, but several provinces. It is well known that there were frequent abuses of power on the part of the Pope. Recent work by St. Dimitry Pashkova shows that approximately the same thing happened in Alexandria. Even in the secular realm, the Alescandrian bishops, due to their influence on the people, could act without regard to the local representatives of the Emperor, sometimes even in spite of them. Here it is appropriate to recall the defeat by order of St. Cyril (already archbishop) of the Jews in Alexandria, which led to the complete desolation of the Jewish part of the city. On the one hand, the Jews set fire to one of the Christian churches and provoked huge riots. But the reprisal against the Jews contradicted the plans of imperial policy, and the prefect of Egypt, Orestes, energetically protested against the anti-Jewish campaign of St. Cyril, after which St. Cyril, in turn, complained about Orestes to Constantinople. During the period closer to the Muslim conquest of Egypt, the imperial power itself began to take into account this position of the Alexandrian archbishops, and there were times when the Emperor granted the archbishop the rights of his governor in Egypt. Understanding the historical situation of that time can partially clarify the activities and behavior of St. Kirill in an acute situation of Christological disputes. After Theophilus' death in 412, controversy arose about his successor. St. Cyril was enthroned already on the third day after the death of Theophilus and assumed the bishopric. Such haste could be explained by the fact that state power did not stand on the side of St. Cyril, but he was supported by the bulk of the clergy and laity, who hastened the consecration 16. Basically the life of St. Kirill at that time was devoted to concerns about the spiritual nourishment of her large flock, the efforts of managing a huge archdiocese, preaching and literary works. These worries and troubles indicate that he did not strive to gain fame and worldly glory. Only a real threat to the Orthodox faith forced him to appear on the historical stage. 2.3. Fight St. Cyril for Orthodoxy against Nestorius. A new period of activity of St. Cyril began after Nestorius became Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorius became archbishop of the capital in 428 and very soon published a collection of his sermons. Rumors about the sermons that Nestorius preached in Constantinople and, moreover, their publication, where they could be read in the original, caused great confusion, because Nestorius preached the heretical doctrine of two Persons in Christ. According to Nestorius, it turned out that Christ consists of two persons: the Son of God and the son of man. In Constantinople itself, Nestorius encountered great resistance. In particular, the residents of Constantinople protested against the fact that Nestorius refused to call the Blessed Virgin Mary. He said that since She gave birth not to God, but only to man, She should be called the Mother of Man. Then, yielding to his flock, who protested against his teaching, Nestorius agreed to call the Mother of God the Christ Mother 17. The dispute about the teachings of Nestorius is, of course, much more than a dispute about the name of the Mother of God, it is a dispute about Christ himself. And therefore the heresy of Nestorius is a Christological heresy. Since 429, the activities of St. Cyril goes beyond the boundaries of the Alexandrian Church. We can say that the entire struggle against Nestorius was led by St. Kirill. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to read in various studies that St. Kirill was primarily a church politician. He strove for his See of Alexandria to be the very first, if not in the universal Church, then at least in its Eastern part. Indeed, St. Kirill cared about his Church. But we have no reason to explain his struggle against Nestorius only with this, because even before the start of disputes with Nestorius, St. Cyril, in his works written during this period, criticized the Christology akin to Nestorius. Below we will consider the points of view of various theologians about how “mature” the Christology of St. is. Cyril before the period of disputes with Nestorius. At the beginning, when the teaching of Nestorius appeared, St. Cyril composed his first works, directed against him, in such a way that only the teachings of Nestorius were discussed and criticized, and his name was not mentioned there. St. Kirill was concerned, first of all, with protecting the truth of Orthodox doctrine. On the other hand, the stronger the Alexandrian Church was, the better it could defend Orthodoxy. That is why St. Cyril also cared about the position of the Alexandrian See and its relationship with other sees. Later St. Cyril writes a message to Nestorius himself. It is composed in respectful terms and St. Cyril asks Nestorius to renounce the wrong teaching, pointing out the church-wide temptation that his Christological doctrine causes. There was turmoil all over the world: in the East and in the West. The teachings of Nestorius were discussed everywhere, it caused indignation everywhere except Nestorius’s homeland - Syria. Almost all of Nestorius' defenders were in Syria. Nestorius answered St. Kirill with irritation. And at court, the clash between the archbishops of Alexandria and Constantinople also caused great irritation. Not because they considered Nestorius to be completely right, but because they did not want a violation of church peace. St. Cyril made a lot of effort to make him understood at court. The most extensive letters of St. Cyril, explaining the Christological teaching - this is his message to the emperor and the so-called queens. Without calling the queens by name, he addresses the wife of Emperor Theodosius II and his three sisters. One of them, St. Pulcheria took a large part in the events, while the emperor himself wanted to avoid this participation and entrust the decision to others. The letter to Pulcheria was striking for its more extensive content and depth of theological arguments than the letter to the king himself, and this gave another reason to suspect St. Kirill in intrigues - an attempt to create discord in the family of the sovereign 18. At the beginning of 430, St. Cyril addresses Nestorius with a second dogmatic message. This second message was subsequently formally approved by the Third Ecumenical Council and became part of the documents of the Council. 2.4. Reaction to the actions of St. Cyril in the West, Western contribution to the fight against Nestorius. Activities of St. Cyril was perceived differently; not everyone immediately understood the seriousness of the conflict with Nestorius. But in Rome St. Kirill was a complete success. He sent his own writings relating to Nestorian Christology and refutations to Rome. In addition, he sent to Rome a Latin translation, made on his behalf, of that collection of Nestorius's sermons, which had been published shortly before. In Rome, when the conflict flared up, they received another copy of Nestorius’ sermons from the Archbishop of Constantinople himself. Nestorius also accompanied the sending of his sermons to Rome with a letter in which he tried to clarify his position. All this material was transferred in Rome for consideration by the famous ascetic Rev. John Cassian, who was a presbyter in Marseille. Rev. John Cassian soon sent his own work, “Seven Books on the Incarnation of Christ,” to Rome. Rev.'s conclusions John were sharply anti-Nestorian. Between the Pope of St. Celestine and St. Kirill established complete unity of thoughts and actions. The Pope authorized St. Kirill to act on his behalf, as his authorized representative. The Pope himself convened a local Council in Rome in August 430, which condemned Nestorius. The Pope instructed St. Cyril to demand both on behalf of the Pope and on St.’s own behalf. Cyril, so that Nestorius renounces his views as soon as possible. Through St. Cyril, the Pope sent a message to Nestorius, the Clergy of Constantinople and some bishops in the East. In the preface to the works of St. Kirill A.S. Sidorov briefly analyzes the Christological views of other Western Church Fathers: St. Hilary of Pictavia, Ambrose of Milan (it is his Christology that is characterized by a “clear soteriological flavor” and a successful synthesis of the ideas of Western and Eastern theology), Blessed. Augustine. Later, their ideas will find synthesis in the “Tomos to Flavian” by St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome, who served as the basis for the Chalcedonian creed. The Fathers of the Council exclaimed that through the mouth of the Pope St. Apostle Peter and Cyril, rightly seeing the similarity of the Christology of St. Cyril and St. Papa Leo. Further A.S. Sidorov refers to I. Adamov, who made the following conclusion about Western Christology: “although ancient Western Christology, completely in the spirit of the Antiochians, sharply distinguished the natures in Christ, it was always far from the Antiochian one, especially clearly expressed in the Nestorian thought of two active subjects in the Incarnate. Western writers from time immemorial have held in essence a completely Orthodox view of Christ the Savior as God who appeared and acted on earth in the flesh. The only trouble is that, given the philosophical ground on which they generally stood, they could not strongly enough express the idea of ​​the Unity of the Incarnate, and with this lack of a purely terminological nature, their Christology in appearance strongly resembled the Christology of Antioch." 19 Here it would be appropriate to give a slightly different opinion: A.I. Diamonds is characterized by the general orientation and style of Western theology precisely in relation to the question of the union of two natures in Christ. The fact of the unity of two natures in the single Person of the God-Man (and other points of Christology), “being postulates of faith, are not at all the subject of such careful analysis for Westerners as can be found in Eastern theology.” We are talking about the tomos of Pope Leo the Great, “which is recognized as the fruit of the development of Western theology itself…. And by which the Western Church responded in such an honorable way to the disputes that worried the East about the two natures in Christ, having high significance as a corrective (emphasis added by me - V.N.) in view of the known deviations from the faith, in fact, it did not at all answer the question that occupied the East about the method of uniting natures in Christ... and its further development in the East (in the direction of Cyril of Alexandria) should have appeared independently " 20. Of course, we will not find such conclusions in the English-language works of Western theologians we cited... 2.5. Prerequisites for the convening of the Third Ecumenical Council. In October 430, the next local Council met in Alexandria. This Council not only repeated the definition of the recent Council of Rome against Nestorius, but also gave its own definitions. These were the famous “12 anathematisms” of St. Kirill. The council accepted them. Nestorius had to sign these anathematisms, which would mean his renunciation of his wrong views. At the same time, St. Cyril addressed his messages first to Bishop Acacius of Veria, highly respected in the east, and then to John of Antioch. John of Antioch was a longtime friend of Nestorius, but he understood that Nestorius had gone too far and advised Nestorius to unconditionally accept the name of the Holy Virgin Theotokos. Nestorius declared that he would agree to this, but refused to accept the 12 anathematisms of St. Kirill, having composed the corresponding essay. In the East, in Syria, these anathematisms were also met very coldly. John of Antioch commissioned two prominent theologians of his Church to examine them (one of these theologians was the famous Theodoret of Cyrus). These analyzes were very critical 21 . St. Cyril wrote an essay in defense of his anathematisms 22 when these critical objections to them appeared. A.S. Sidorov admits that such sharp anathematisms (Orthodox in essence, but with an emphasis on the unity of the Person of the God-Man) were a tactical mistake of the Alexandrian saint, which alienated many of his potential supporters among the “Easterns” from him 23 . One can also say, according to the observation of L. Cohen, that his “Alexandrian” terminology “introduced Apollinarian notes into the ears of the Antiochians.” 24. At one time, fighting against Arianism, Apollinaris developed his own teaching about Christ, which turned out to be heretical. This teaching consisted of the following: it was argued that in the man-Christ there was no rational human soul. Apollinaris proceeded from trichotomous anthropology, according to which a person consists of spirit, soul and body. In other words, the spirit is the same as the mind, the same as the rational soul; in this case, what is called simply the soul should be called the irrational soul. According to Apollinaris, Christ did not have a human mind, or a human spirit, or a human rational soul, since in him this highest spiritual substance was replaced by the person of the Son of God. That is, it turned out that Christ is a perfect God, but not a perfect man, an incomplete man. This teaching was then condemned during the lifetime of Apollinaris at several local Councils and at the Second Ecumenical Council. But Apollinaris and his followers continued their activities and distributed the works of Apollinaris or his students under false names 25. St. Cyril of Alexandria became one of the victims of these famous Apollinarian forgeries. The fact that these writings are forged and actually belong to the school of Apollinaris was proven long ago, back in the 6th century. But St. Cyril did not know this; he accepted these forged works as the works of such great theologians as, for example, St. Athanasius the Great. These writings actually influenced St. in terms of terminology. Cyril - he borrowed some of his formulas from there, for example, the famous formula “the one nature of God the Word incarnate” (µ ία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη - 2nd letter to Sukkens, [cited from 26 ). This formula was precisely taken from the forged Apollinarian writings. The Epistle to Sukkens supposedly dates from 433. But earlier, in his letter to Nestorius (429), St. Cyril speaks of the single incarnate Hypostasis of the Word. Thus, there is no need to talk about the presence of a single clear terminology in St. Cyril. Below we will talk about how the formula m ία φύσις can be understood in the Orthodox way. St. Cyril was not an Apollinarian in his theological views, either formally or in essence. If the theology of St. Cyril and has a drawback in the form of imperfect terminology (he even has some contradictions in terms and formulas), the teaching that he defended with all his might is the doctrine of the unity of the Face of the God-Man. Moreover, he repeatedly insisted that human nature in Christ is a complete nature, consisting of a body and a rational human soul. So, the accusation of St. Cyril in Apollinarianism, having some external grounds for it, had no grounds in essence, which will be discussed in detail below in paragraph 6.5. 2.6. Convocation of the Third Ecumenical Council. Nestorius did not want to submit to the sentence that Rome and Alexandria jointly pronounced against him, and convinced the Emperor of the need to convene an Ecumenical Council. The imperial decree convening the Council scheduled it for Pentecost 431. The site of the Council was Ephesus, a city halfway between Constantinople and Alexandria. Local bishop St. Memnon fully supported St. Kirill; the Roman legates also supported him. Nestorius was banned from entering the Ephesian churches. As is known, St. Cyril decided to open the Council without waiting for the Syrian bishops, after a 16-day wait for them (perhaps they were simply “playing for time” 27). Despite the protests of the imperial representative, based on the date of the Council, which was named in the imperial Decree, St. Cyril begins the meeting of the Council. Nestorius, despite repeated invitations, did not want to appear at the Council, and was condemned. When subsequently the Syrian bishops did arrived, they formed their own council, which is known in history as the “Council” and, in turn, condemned St. Cyril. After both councils completed their work, the emperor found himself in a very difficult position. At the first moment, the emperor recognized both councils as valid, simply not noticing the complete contradiction of their decisions. In accordance with this, both first hierarchs were declared deposed. Further negotiations in Ephesus did not lead to any results and caused much more discord. But the overwhelming majority of bishops were on the side of St. Cyril and ultimately the victory remained with him - only one of the two councils was true and ecumenical, the council of Cyril of Alexandria and Memnon of Ephesus, to which the Roman legates also joined. It was this majority that probably determined the final position of the imperial court, which hesitated, but still refused to support Nestorius. Some sources note the positive role of the Emperor's sister Pulcheria and the capital's monasticism. It is interesting that the Council of Ephesus did not pronounce any dogmatic definition of faith, for the fathers of the Council saw in the theology of St. Cyril is an organic continuation and full expression of the faith of the Council of Nicaea. Thus, the conciliar consciousness of the Church recognized this theology as its own, rejecting the false teaching of Nestorius. The urgency of the issue was that Nestoria was initially supported by almost the entire Orthodox East, i.e. Church of Antioch, and here Nestorius was renounced canonically rather than dogmatically. Ultimately, the question of Nestorius is a question of Antiochene theology as a whole. Even a century later, the question about the Antiochians Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Blessed. Theodorite of Cyrrhus was installed at the V Ecumenical Council, when Theodore was condemned, and from the works of the blessed. Theodoret was anathematized by some. So, we have to admit in Nestorius a dangerous theological tendency towards excessive isolation of human nature in Christ. And not only with him, but also with the entire Antiochian theological school. According to Rev. G. Florovsky, the problem was that “some of the Orthodox turned out to be theologically myopic... The Antiochians, the “Easterns,” were guilty of this myopia. For them, the ghost of Apollinaris obscured the real image of Nestorius, just as in its time, after the Council of Nicaea, for many the ghost of Sabellius obscured the image of Arius. Then they argued with the imaginary Sabellianism of St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians, now with the imaginary Apollinarianism of St. Kirill “[Magazine “Path” No. 33, p. 74]. 2.7. Reconciliation with the “Easterns” 433 years. Although the heresiarch was deposed and sent into exile, St. Kirill clearly realized that the final victory of Orthodoxy was still far away. The opposition of the two church centers - Alexandria and Antioch - remained. The Antiochians continued to defend Nestorius. One of the most prominent Antioch theologians of that time, Bl. Theodoret of Cyrus agreed to anathematize Nestorius only at the IV Ecumenical Council, 20 years after the Council of Ephesus. It is quite difficult to formulate the formal results of the Council of Ephesus. On the one hand, the Council approved the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius, but this is a very lengthy document and the question arises of what exactly in it is considered approved by the Council, as an expression of church faith. The situation is even more difficult with the anathematisms of St. Kirill. They were included in the documents of the Council, but they were not put to a vote, and it is still controversial whether the 12 anathematisms of St. can be considered. Cyril approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. Meanwhile, the emperor, as well as the primates of Constantinople and Rome, continued active work to reconcile St. Cyril with the “eastern” and in the end the two church centers developed a common Christological formula, which was expressed in the message that St. Cyril sent to John of Antioch in 433. This message, which is called after its first words “Let the heavens rejoice” 28, can be considered the final result of the Third Ecumenical Council. The Eastern bishops were satisfied with the renunciation of St. Kirill from all the mistakes that they saw in him. Thus, not only 12 anathematisms were discarded, but also the expressions “one nature” and “unity by nature” 29 . However, there are no contradictions between the message and other works of St. Cyril is not there, although in his letter of 433 he acknowledges a certain correctness of the Antioch theologians in using the expression “one person.” In fact, the situation with the not entirely clear terminology of St. Cyril recalled a similar situation with the terminology of his great predecessor St. Athanasius during the Council of Nicaea. Nevertheless, agreement was reached and restrictions were imposed on the “far-reaching” Cyril “communicatio idiomatum” in the form of the Antiochene formulas 30 . Activities of St. Cyril in this last period of his life, when he strove with all his might for peace with Antioch, caused discontent even among his allies. Among them stood out an extreme group that considered his message of 433 to be erroneous. Just like in Antioch itself, there were quite influential forces that did not recognize this agreement. The situation later caused dire consequences. This manifested itself with all its force after the death of St. Kirill. 3. Creations of St. Kirill. The first among the works of Saint Cyril were his exegetical works on the Old Testament. Even before his episcopate, he wrote the book “On Worship in Spirit and in Truth” (in the form of dialogues), 13 books of “Graceful Sayings” - Γλαφυρά, interpretations of some prophetic books. In these interpretations, Saint Cyril adhered to the Alexandrian method. According to this method, he searches for the "spiritual meaning" under the letter of Scripture. In his first interpretative work, Saint Cyril reveals this mysterious, allegorical and immutable meaning of the Mosaic Law and paints a complete picture of the Old Testament economy. They pay special attention to the Old Testament prototypes of the Church. In the books of “Graceful Sayings” he develops the same theme and sets himself the task of showing that in all the books of Moses the mystery of the Incarnation is foreshadowed. Of the early works, special mention should be made of the “Commentaries on the Gospel of John,” containing twelve books. Books VII-VIII of them are lost and only fragments of them are preserved in the “catenas”. It is quite difficult to date this work - some of the patrolologists express the opinion that it was written before 428, but in the work itself there are traces of anti-Nestorian polemics. Perhaps this extensive work was begun back in The “pre-Nestorian” period of St. Cyril’s work, and ended after 428. When creating it, the saint relied on a fairly stable tradition of interpretation of the fourth Gospel, dating back to ancient times, although it is currently very difficult to establish the direct sources of this tradition, according to modern researchers, T. Waynendi and L. Cohen, not enough attention was paid to the study of the “Commentaries on the Gospel of John”. cited work by L. Cohen is called: “Why study Commentaries on the Gospel of John?”, which cites the opinions of several modern theologians that the specific terminology in the Christology of St. Cyril gave rise to many discords in the Church during the period of the anti-Nestorian controversy. Studying his “Commentaries on the Gospel of John,” written by him, most likely, before the controversy, will make it possible to more clearly identify the theological vision of these problems by the Alexandrian saint. In the same chapter, Lars Cohen compares the views of Protestant theologians who believe that the Commentaries do not reflect the theological completeness of the later Christology of St. Cyril, with Roman Catholic and Anglican theologians who consider the theology of St. Cyril before the polemic with Nestorius is as profound as after the polemic 31. This depth is due to the constant rooting of his theology in Tradition - L. Cohen makes an attempt to trace the dependence of St. Cyril from the Fathers of the Church - his contemporaries. In almost all Christological works of St. Cyril, he again and again turns to two places from Holy Scripture: John. 1, 14 and Phil. 2, 5–11. And although these two places speak about different aspects of the earthly life of the Savior, they agree on the main thing and show one thing: God’s saving action reached man 32. So, the study of the “Interpretations...” once again shows that the anti-Nestorian polemic of St. Cyril was not some kind of trump card in the church-political confrontation between Alexandria and Constantinople, but all the basic theological ideas of St. Cyril about the Face of the God-Man, inherited by him from the early fathers of the Church, are present in the “Interpretations...”. During the period of Nestorian disputes, only their polemical aggravation was possible. A similar opinion about the unity of Cyril’s Christology is shared not only by T. Vanendy, Lars Cohen and Steve McKinion, whom we quote, but also by J. Liebert and O. Bardenruever 33 . 4. Terminology of the era of Christological disputes. The severity of Christological disputes was aggravated by the lack of common terminology understandable to all sides. Clarification of dogmatic issues in Christological disputes of the V-VII centuries. was associated with determining the exact meaning of basic theological terms: “nature (φύσις)”, “hypostasis (ύπόστασις)”, “person (πρόσωπον)”, “essence (ουσία)”. Let us note that Christological terminology has never been something constant; on the contrary, below we will try to show its development over time. So, back in the Nicene period, St. Athanasius of Alexandria does not distinguish between the concepts of “essence” and “hypostasis”: “hypostasis is the essence and designates nothing else but the very essence” [“Epistle to the African Bishops” (369 or 370)]. Later, the great Cappadocians, having clearly distinguished these concepts, would be able to express the dogmatic truths about the Persons of the Holy Trinity, understandable to the entire Church. If we talk about nature (φύσις), then we mean something common, unifying characteristics. This set of known signs of nature can only be comprehended by the mind, but it finds its real expression only in the individual. Thus, “nature”, on the one hand, means a set of things (creatures) that have the same qualitative characteristics. For example, the divine nature is the Holy Trinity, whose three Persons have a common nature. Or human nature - the entire multitude of people who have lived and are living on earth, starting with Adam. On the other hand, it may be a concrete realization of the general nature, in relation to which the general nature is “the mistress, the cause and the parent” 34. Due to the identity of qualitative definitions between general nature and its concrete expression, the name of general nature is also applied to its concrete realizations. “The word God also means a community of nature and is used equally in relation to each hypostasis - just like the word man. He who has divine nature is God, and he who has human nature is man." 35 That is why we affirm that the Lord Jesus Christ in the Incarnation assumed human nature in its entirety, except for sin. The next most important theological term of the era is “hypostasis.” During this period, in a letter “To Brother Gregory” St. Basil the Great formulates the distinction between essence and hypostasis, as general and particular: essence is “a name used about many and numerically different objects,” which “have a common meaning.” So, for example, the word “man” in the context “Peter is a man, Paul is a man, etc.” denotes the human essence common to all people. While hypostasis is a name that has “a particular meaning, which does not mean the generality of nature in the signified, but the outline of an object according to its distinctive property.” These are the names - Peter, Paul, Andrei, indicating individual human personalities. “Essence and hypostasis have the same difference between themselves,” St. writes elsewhere. Vasily, - what is between the general and the individual.” So, we can say, using this terminology, that God has one essence, but three hypostases. Thus, according to St. Basil the Great, hypostasis is a unique and unrepeatable individuality. So, it is St. Vasily saw in “essence” and “hypostasis” the difference between the general and the particular. However, the above reasoning of St. Basil the Great about the unity of nature in “Peter, Paul and Andrew” are in the nature of illustration. In polemics with the first significant Christological heresy of Apollinaris of Laodicea, St. Gregory the Theologian comes close to the formulation according to which there are two natures in Christ (Divine and human), but one Hypostasis: “For although [in Christ] there are two natures (φύσεις μεν γαρ δύοι), God and man, as in man there is soul and body, but not two sons, not two Gods. Briefly say: in the Savior there is another and another (άλλο μεν και άλλο): because the invisible is not identical with the visible and the pre-temporal (τό άχρονον) with that which is under time: but the other and the other (όνκ) have no place in it άλλος δε και άλλος ). This will not happen” 36. However, it took about a century for the concepts of “hypostasis” and “nature” to be finally transferred to Christology and to become precisely those terms that accurately and clearly express the Orthodox teaching about the Incarnation. In a similar way, St. Cyril uses the terms “essence” (ουσία) or “nature (φύσις)” to designate a set of individuals united by some kind of community. To designate a specific individual reality, he uses the terms nature (φύσις),” “hypostasis (ύπόστασις)” and “person (πρόσωπον).” Unlike the first two terms, which indicate a certain individual thing in general, the term “person (πρόσωπον)” has a narrower meaning and can only mean a thing that has independent existence. In Christology, which deals with rational and free nature, the term πρόσωπον indicates a personal subject who has his own separate self, bears a proper name and has his own self-consciousness. “Self-awareness and otherness” - these words can describe the two most important characteristics of a person. The main drawback of the terminology of St. Cyril is that the Christological terms he uses φύσις, ύπόστασις and πρόσωπον each have several meanings, i.e. In his polemic with Nestorius, he did not yet fully distinguish between the concepts of “nature” and “hypostasis” in relation to the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. So, if in a letter to Nestorius in 428 there are 37 St. Cyril speaks of the “single hypostasis of the incarnate Word,” then several years later, in a letter to Sukkens, Archbishop of Diocaesarea, St. Cyril uses the ambiguous formula µ ία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη about the single nature of the Word of God incarnate. Speaking of Christ as μία φύσις, μία ὐπόστασις and sometimes as ἔν πρόσωπον, St. Kirill thereby wanted to point out the unity of being, the unity of life of the God-man, to affirm the idea that Christ is a single living being, an individual who cannot be divided into parts. They write a lot about this Th. Weinandy and Lars Koen in the works we quote. Using the terminology of the great Cappadocians, St. Cyril uses “essence,” “nature,” and “hypostasis” to designate the principles from which Christ was composed. To define the divine-human unity, he used the expressions μία φύσις or μία ὐπόστασις; he uses the term οὐσία in relation to the components of the divine-human unity in Christ extremely rarely 38 . Perhaps this is exactly what T. Waynendi means when he distinguishes the term entity (being, something that really exists) from the term quiddity (essence; sometimes even translated as “whatness” from the Latin word quid - “what”). So, it took about a century after St. Cyril, until his follower Leontius of Byzantium formulated his famous concept of “hypostasis,” which will make it possible to finally understand that personality is the organizing principle of being, that it is she who hypopostasizes, i.e. absorbs nature and thus gives it existence. In particular, it is the personality that brings the body and soul of man into unity, just as the personality of the Savior unites deity and humanity. As for the terms that are quite acceptable in denoting the unity of man with God, for example: “contact” (συνάφεια), “communion” (σχετική), then St. Cyril considers it impossible to use them in Christology, since these terms can only be used in the case when it is necessary to emphasize the difference in the personalities of those who have united 39. 5. Man before and after the incarnation of the Word of God. 5.1. The original state of man. One of the aspects of the conformity of the created person to his Creator is freedom. This freedom presupposes participation in the divine life. Freedom is not opposed to grace. St. writes about it this way. Kirill: “Man, from the very beginning of creation, received the ability to control his desires and could freely choose in accordance with his inclinations, since the Deity, whose image he is, is free” (PG 69, 24, quoted on 40). The human soul is immortal not by nature, but by the grace of God, in order to be able to rule over all earthly creatures. Thus (and St. Cyril repeatedly emphasizes this at the beginning of his interpretations of the Gospel of John 41), the presence of a person in the material world is not a punishment for sin, but, on the contrary, a person was brought into this world by the latter as a king. Indicative is the thought of St. Cyril that Moses already meant the Spirit of Christ to be identical with the biblical “breath of life”: "The Creator of all things, taking dust from the earth and forming man, breathed into his face the breath of life (Gen. 2:7). Who is this breath of life, if obviously not the Spirit of Christ who speaks: I am the resurrection and life (John 11:25)? Since the Spirit, who can form and contain us in the Divine image, has withdrawn from humanity, the Savior will again give Him to us, raising (us) to that former (our) dignity and transforming it into His own image. That is why Paul speaks to some (Galatians): Little children whom I will bear again until Christ is formed in you (Gal. 4:19) "42. Communion in the Holy Spirit was the cause of the original incorruption of our first parents: “After all, this rational animal on earth, that is, man, from the beginning possessed incorruptibility, and the reason for this incorruption and the possession of all perfections was the indwelling of the Spirit from God into him, for he breathed into his face the breath of life, as it is written (Gen. 2:7)” 43. However, a person can find the fullness of spiritual sanctification only in the New Testament, since the Son of God makes those in whose hearts He Himself dwells through His Holy Spirit Sons of God: "... Jesus became the messenger and high priest of our confession, according to the word of Paul (Heb. 3: 1), of course, in a manner appropriate to humanity and the image of humiliation. But as soon as the disciples were appointed for this, he says, they had, without a doubt, the need for sanctification from the Holy Father, who obviously instilled in them the Holy Spirit through the Son" 44. 5.2. God's eternal plan of salvation. Saint Cyril often speaks of God’s eternal intention for our salvation. From the moment of Adam’s Fall, and in fact even before it, the Lord has been taking certain measures in order to overcome the consequences of the Fall. Indeed, “The Creator of all, having long-suffered for a long time, finally had mercy on the perishing universe and, being good, hastened to again gather the flock that had wandered on the earth. He deigned to transform humanity again into its former image through the Spirit, for otherwise it was impossible for the Divine traits to shine in him the same as they were before” 45. Of course, the main thing in this process of restoring fallen human nature is the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Here Saint Cyril speaks entirely in the spirit of St. Irenaeus of Lyons and the Great Cappadocians, but in this case it is difficult to establish direct connections. However, Lars Cohen offers 46 the following quotation from the third book of St. Irenaeus "Against Heresies": “There is One God the Father,... and One Christ Jesus our Lord, who has to come to the universal dispensation and restores everything in Himself, He who is invisible became visible, He who is incomprehensible became encompassed and alien to the suffering of those who suffer, and the Word became man, restoring everything in Himself, so that just as in the heavenly, spiritual and invisible (world) the Word of God is in charge, so in the visible and in the physical It has authority and appropriating primacy and placing Himself as the Head of the Church will attract everything to Himself at the appropriate time." 47. 5.3. The state of man after the Incarnation. In the incarnation of the Eternal Logos, St. Cyril, faithful to the theology of his predecessor St. Athanasius the Great, sees, first of all, the restoration of the fallen image and the deification of our nature. He repeats the thought of St. Athanasius “God became man so that man might become deified.” And as an example of the soteriological perception of the incarnation, one can cite the following passage from St. Kirill: “Having become partakers of Him (Heb. 3:14) through the Spirit, we have received a seal in likeness with Him and are ascending into the original form of the image in which, as Divine Scripture says, we were created. Thus, having finally received again the original beauty of our nature and transformed in accordance with that divine nature, we will overcome the evil that befell us as a result of the crime. So, we ascend to supernatural dignity through Christ, but we will also sons of God, not at all without any difference from Him, but only through grace in imitation of Him. He is the true Son, who is from the Father, and we are adopted by love for mankind, receiving as grace (dignity expressed in the words): “Az reh: Gods by nature and sons of the Most High” (Psalm 81:6) "48. The desire to heal all of humanity (such a large-scale task is truly only possible for God) was driven, according to St. Cyril, the Lord, who sent His only begotten Son, who took on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7): "But since... the countless and incomprehensible types of Divine economy served for the benefit of a few, and other people remained unhealed: then the great and ineffable sacrament of economy is accomplished. The Word of God itself,...recreates human nature and recreates its image, corrupted by sin, renews the statue, brought into decay by the son of wickedness, and makes it more beautiful than the former, not creating it, as in ancient times, from the earth, but having himself received it, not changing the Divine nature into human, but uniting the human with the Divine: for, remaining what He was, He took on what it was not." 49 The Incarnation of the Lord, as His sending by God the Father into the world, is closely connected, according to the observation of T. Vanendy 50, with the Savior’s suffering on the cross: “The Only Begotten, being God and from God by nature, became man, obviously in order to condemn sin in the flesh, put to death death by His own death and reveal us as sons of God, who are on earth, having been reborn in the Spirit to a dignity that exceeds their nature. It was in this way, without a doubt, that it was possible to completely lead again and restore to its original state the fallen race, that is, the human race” 51. In full accordance with church tradition, which directly links the Incarnation of the Word of God with the possibility of the deification of man, St. Cyril gives deification a completely realistic understanding. This is not at all only the renewal of man, his moral correction. This is ontological deification. Its basis is the kenosis of the Word before death, death on the cross, without which it is impossible to imagine our salvation, writes St. Cyril in the glafirs on Exodus 52. The Incarnation, although it was willed from time immemorial (In Issa. XXV, 1 – MPGr. t.70, col.5 – cited from 53, is understood exclusively in the soteriological aspect. On the issue of the direct connection between the fall of the first parents and the Incarnation of God, St. Cyril takes an extreme position: “if we had not sinned, He would not have become man” (De Trinit. dial. 5. – PG, 75, col. 8 – quoted from 54. It is interesting that St. Maxim the Confessor thought differently - about the possibility of Incarnation without the Fall, see Malkov “On Incarnation without Redemption” [Sb. 5.4. Restoring the Image of God to its original state. Christ as the restorer of fallen human nature. Interpreting the verse “In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you” (John 14:20), St. Kirill speaks of two images of the restoration of fallen human nature. The first is that the Word, by nature possessing the immutability of the basic properties of the Divine, and therefore completely unable to fall into sin or deviate into wrongness, is God the Father “he forced sin to voluntarily descend into the flesh, so that, having made it his own flesh, he would transform it into his own natural property, that is, not to sin” 55. “The Word, being God by nature, condemned sin in His flesh, commanding it to remain inactive and forcing it to be directed towards what is pleasing to God, and not towards its own desires, and thus transformed the body, which was spiritual, into spiritual” 56. The second image is that the Savior gave us eternal life, putting to death death and removing corruption from human nature, which occurred as a result of the Fall. This image allows us to partially explain original sin. In general, a distinctive feature of Eastern Orthodox theology is the understanding of original sin not as participation in the guilt of the descendants of Adam, but the inheritance of sin as a kind of disease (ϕθορά) perceived by Adam. Only the consequences of sin can be passed on by inheritance, but not sinfulness itself. By the way, the Greek word itself ἁ μάρτημα means not only sin, fault, crime, but, above all, a mistake, a mistake, an illness... “It was impossible for a man with a corruptible nature to avoid death otherwise than in such a way that he again received that original grace and again became a partaker of God, who contains and gives life to all things through the Son in the Spirit. Therefore, he partook of flesh and blood, that is, he became a man, being Life by nature and born of Life by nature, that is, from God and the Father, His Only Begotten Word, so that, ineffably and ineffably and as Himself alone It knew, in accordance with His nature, having united Himself with corruptible flesh, to raise it into His own life and to reveal through Himself a participant in God and the Father." 57 Modern theologians (Arch. I. Meyendorff, Lars Cohen) also note discrepancies in the translation of the verse Rom. 5, 12: “in the same place all sinned.” As is known, there are two significantly divergent traditions of reading this text: four Greek words in Latin were translated in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in him (i.e. Adam) all sinned”). It was this text that was used in the West (and, unfortunately, in our theological textbooks of the 19th century) to substantiate the doctrine of sin, which we inherit from Adam, and bear it as coming from him. However, this meaning is not in the original Greek text, which was also used by St. Kirill. The form "εϕ᾿ᾧ", formed from the prefix επι and the relative pronoun ᾧ, can be translated as "because", and most modern researchers (regardless of denominational affiliation) agree on the translation of this passage. For example, Lars Cohen points out that Bl. Augustine "was misled by Jerome's translation of Rom. 5, 12 “in which all have sinned” 58. Thus, if we turn directly to the Greek text, we can read the pronoun ᾧ in the masculine gender: and then it means “for the sake of someone,” “because of someone,” and is related to the immediately preceding masculine noun ὁ θάνατος (death). In this case, the whole phrase takes on a meaning that, from the theological point of view of Bl. Augustine, seems completely incredible, but which was accepted by the majority of the fathers of the Eastern Church: “Therefore, just as by one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men; and because of death all have sinned...” The form "εϕ ᾿ ᾧ", formed from the prefix επι and the relative pronoun ᾧ, can be translated as “because”. By the way, this very expression εϕ ᾿ ᾧ is found 3 more times in St. Apostle Paul: For we, being in this hut, groan under the burden, * because * we do not want to be undressed, but to be clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up into life (2 Cor. 5:4). I say this not because I have already achieved or perfected myself; but I press on lest I may attain * as * Christ Jesus hath attained me (Phil. 3:12). I rejoiced greatly in the Lord * that * you have already begun to take care of me again; You were careful before, but circumstances were not favorable to you (Philippians 4:10). Thus, in all three examples the neuter gender of the pronoun is meant and can be translated as follows: “given that”, “in this situation”. This death, which was for Adam “the wages of sin” (Rom. 6:23), also serves as a punishment for those who sin like Adam. This assumes the cosmic significance of Adam's sin, but does not assert "legal" guilt like his own on the part of his descendants, unless they sin like Adam himself (cf. 59). So, “the sin itself remains the guilt of the one who committed it; only the consequences of sin, and not the guilt itself, can be passed on by inheritance” 60. And, of course, if a certain solidarity is established between Adam and his descendants in death, then between the risen Lord and those who are baptized in His Name, solidarity is established in life: Since St. Cyril no longer goes further in revealing the state of fallen humanity, which is precisely why, according to L. Cohen, the anti-Pelagian polemic did not have any noticeable influence throughout the Eastern Church 61 . Prof. comes to similar conclusions. John Meyendorff: "In the Byzantine world, where Augustine's thought had virtually no influence, the significance of Adam's sin and its consequences for the human race was understood completely differently than in the West." 62 The following saying of St. Cyril from his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans summarizes the above: "Adam was created for incorruption and life; in paradise he lived a holy life: his mind was completely and always turned to the contemplation of God, his body was safe and at peace, not revealing any desire for sinful pleasures, for there was no disturbance of base inclinations in it. But after the fall, when he was subjected to corruption as a result of sin, the desire for unclean pleasures struck the nature of the flesh, and the cruel law was revealed operating in our members ( Rom. 7, 5. 23) The whole nature became sick with sin “by the disobedience of one man” (Rom. 5, 19), that is, Adam. And many became sinners, but not through participation in Adam’s sin - because they did not yet exist - but through participation in his nature, which fell under the law of sin (Rom. 7, 23; 8, 2). received the disease of corruption (ἐρρώστησεν τὴν ϕθοράν) through disobedience, because through disobedience the passions entered into human nature, so that in Christ it was restored and healed, since it became obedient to God and the Father and committed no sin (1 Peter. 2, 22, Isa. 53, 9)" [PG 74, 789ab]. A similar idea, that those who have not sinned cannot bear “legal responsibility” for Adam’s sin, is also contained in the Commentaries on the Gospel of John: “It would be strange if through the first one, I mean Adam, condemnation extends to everyone and even those who have not sinned wear the most inglorious image of earthy food, that is, at the time when the forefather transgressed the commandment given to him” 63. Further, Saint Cyril links deification (redemption...) with the action of the Holy Spirit. Thus, there is also a pneumatological aspect of returning us to the state of our ancestors: “It was impossible to raise us to the original beauty, once we fell from it for the sake of crime in the first (Adam), except through receiving unspeakable communication and unity with God, for this is how the nature of the earthly inhabitants was originally structured. And this unity with God could not be in anyone other than through the communion of the Holy Spirit, introducing into us His property of holiness and transforming the nature that had fallen into corruption into the life characteristic of Him and in this way leading us to God and to His image that which is devoid of this glory. After all, the Son is the pure image of the Father, and the natural likeness of the Son is His Spirit. Therefore, transforming human souls as if into Himself, He (the Spirit) inscribes the Divine image in them and imprints the reflection of the Supreme Essence. 5.5. Soteriological perception of the Incarnation. The main idea of ​​Christological disputes can be expressed in just a few words - these are disputes about the possibility for a person to be involved in God. After all, not only a moral union, but also a real union is possible between God and man. Such a connection received the name “deification” in patristic literature. This is exactly what St. Cyril means when he says: “It would be very strange if fire could impart into a combustible substance the sensual quality of its inherent power (to burn) and, as it were, transform into itself that to which it is communicated, but to think about the Word of God, which exceeds all, that It cannot impart His goodness to the flesh, that is, life.”65. Above we talked about the state of man after the Fall. St. Cyril emphasizes that the incarnate Christ took on the whole person, body and soul. The weakness, vulnerability and many wounds of fallen human nature, which the Incarnate Word heals, are especially emphasized: “The Word of God became flesh, so that one could contemplate together the plague and the medicine, the sick and the Physician, the one who turned away to death and the One who raises to life, the one overcome by corruption and the One who drives away corruption, the one subjected to the power of death and the Conqueror of death, deprived of life and the Giver of life” 66. Thus, feeling the greatness of these forces that have brought human nature to such a state, a person is convinced that he has no power over them. At the same time, a person begins to become more deeply aware of his own nature, its vulnerability and finitude, and is horrified by his susceptibility to disease, aging, and death. Having gained the mercy and love of the Incarnate Word, he hopes to overcome his own inferiority. Thus, the words of St. Cyril can instill a powerful spiritual charge in those who are being saved. After all, the saving gifts of the Incarnation, although intended for all humanity, are not given automatically. By virtue of the Incarnation, the kinship of all humanity with Christ is real, but will not bring any benefit to unbelievers and sinners. Further, the Alexandrian saint emphasizes the uniqueness of the Incarnation, in which “the flesh is not separated from the Word.” Thus, again and again the saint speaks about the unity of the Word: “The Word, he says, did not come into the flesh, but became flesh, so that you would not think that It appeared in the same way as in the prophets or other saints, but It truly became flesh, that is, man, which we just talked about. Therefore, God is by nature in the flesh and with the flesh, having it as His own (flesh) and (at the same time) Thinkable as another something different from it and in it and with it Worshiped, ...They say that God is in Him, without separating the flesh from the Word, and on the other hand they assert that there is no other God besides Him, uniting with the Word what is worn (by Him) as His own, that is, the church from the Virgin, for Christ is one of both "67. Thanks to the incarnation of the Logos, not only the Forefather, but all of humanity is saved. What is deified in Christ is also in us. Comparing the two Adams, earthly and heavenly, St. Cyril draws our attention not to the difference in their natures, which are the same, but much more to their way of life: “After all, He is the mediator of God and people, according to what is written (1 Tim. 2:5), being united with God and the Father naturally as God and from Him (born), and with people again as a man and as having the Father in Himself and Himself being in the Father. He is the mark and reflection of His hypostasis (Heb. 1: 3), being inseparable from that essence of which He is the mark and from which He comes, as reflection, but also being in it and having it in Himself. But He also has us in Himself, since He took our nature and made our body the body of the Word, for “the Word became flesh,” according to the word of John (1:14). And He took on our nature, transforming it into His own life. And He is in us, for we all became partakers of Him and have Him in us through the Spirit. we are called, thus having in ourselves the Father Himself through the Son. Paul testified to this in the words: “And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father” (Gal. 4: 6), for there is nothing else separate from the Son, His Spirit, I say, of course, in relation to natural identity "68. Having come to earth by ineffable providence, Christ became a man not for His own sake. He not only brings a new teaching, but also shows humanity in Himself the way to renew human nature into its original state: “For our sake, providentially giving up His body to death, He again introduced His life into it, not obviously freeing Himself from the bonds of death, since He is thought of as God. After all, He came (to earth) and became a man not for His own sake, but in order to show human nature through Himself and in Himself the path to avoiding death and returning to the original incorruptibility” 69. In his comments on the words of the Lord, “My food is to do the will of him who sent Me” (John 4:34), St. Cyril says: “If He had not dwelt in us, then the nature of the flesh would not have been rendered powerless by corruption” 70. Christ is a man who has his own will, and Christ in his divine nature manifests this will 71. It is interesting that in the “controversial” work “On the Holy Trinity” by St. Kirill also speaks about the difference between the two wills: Ἕ τερον τῆς θείας ϕύσεως, καὶ ἕ τερον τῆς ἀντρωπικῆς. This may seem strange in the sense that if St. Cyril spoke about two wills in Christ, then how could monothelitism spread so much in the future? It can be assumed that here he can follow the general idea that every ϕύσις has its own θέλημα. There is an opinion that monothelitism is largely explained by the fact that the Syriac tseviona corresponds in Greek to the words θέλημα and γνώμη at once, and therefore, the Syrians did not understand what these “two wills” were, seeing in this a kind of schizophrenia. 6.1. Consistency of the Son with the Father, equality of the Son and the Father. As the successor of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Cyril repeatedly conveys in his interpretations the idea that the Word of God is the True God, Consubstantial with the Father. After all, only the True God can save humanity and give the opportunity to become “partakers of the Divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4): “I live,” He said (v. 19), for I am Life by nature and have shown My church (body) alive! But when you yourself, although having a corruptible nature, see yourselves alive in the likeness of Me, then you will understand, and it is very clear that I, being Life by nature, have united you through Myself with God and the Father Himself, Who is also Life by nature, making you partners, as it were, and partakers of His incorruption. After all, I am naturally in the Father, for I am the fruit of His essence and a true generation, existing and emerging from it as Life from Life. But you are in Me, and I am in you, since I appeared as a man and showed you as partners of the Divine nature, having infused My Spirit into you" 72 . In the interpretation of Chapter III of the Gospel of John, St. Cyril speaks clearly about the unity of the Son: ““No one ascended into heaven as soon as the Son of Man descended from heaven.” And although the Word of God itself descended from heaven, he nevertheless says that the Son of Man descended, not wanting to divide Him after His incarnation into two persons and not allowing anyone to say that one Son is the One who became the church taken from the Virgin for the salvation of people, and the other is the Word Who appeared from God the Father.” 73. Here we can assume that similar places of St. Cyril inserted it into his interpretations later, during the period of the anti-Nestorian controversy. However, there is nothing here that goes beyond the general context of the verse being interpreted. Reasoning in this way, T. Waynendi comes to the conclusion that it is completely incorrect to talk about a change in the nature of the Son, as the extreme Monophysites did: “Firstly, according to Cyril, the Gospels testify that there is one subject or person of Christ. Secondly, the reason is that divinity and humanity are united in one person so, therefore, both in the form of one nature of Jesus and the sense of one being (not essence), like the form of the unity of soul and body in human existence. And this comparison is used only to indicate unity and not to show how this unity is achieved" 74. Or, in other words, it is completely incorrect to use the Monophysite formula, which recognizes two natures of the Son before the union and one nature after the union. In almost all explanations of divine truths, both Holy Scripture and the Fathers of the Church resort to one or another analogy. On the one hand, according to A.I. Brilliantova, Holy Scripture, “pointing to the creation of man in the image of God, directly establishes not only the possibility, but also the obligatory nature of using the analogy of human nature in understanding the mystery of the divine Trinitarian life. However, here too this application immediately encounters seemingly insurmountable difficulties. Obviously, starting from the analogy of the individual human spirit and trying to rise to the concept of the Divine Spirit, one can come to the concept of nothing more than the same individual Spirit and certain moments of His personal life, instead of actual Hypostases "75. That is, if we take as the starting point the multiplicity of individuals in which the human nature common to all people is actually manifested, then in this case there is no real unity of the divine Spirit, and such an analogy can only be convincing from the point of view of Platonic realism. It seems even more difficult to use analogies to explain the exceptional fact of the incarnation of the Son of God. The analogy “soul/body union” (expression by T. Waynendi) is insufficient because the bodily organization of a person cannot have an independent existence (the expression “the soul has left the body” means the death of this body), which human nature as a whole has. Therefore, the whole difficulty of this task lies in the question of uniting the integral human nature with the divine. And if this analogy was used by the Orthodox fathers (with the necessary reservations), it was mainly used by the Arians and Apollinarians, who taught about the acceptance of the Logos during the incarnation of only one flesh. According to T. Vanendy, the analogy “unity of soul and body” (“soul/body union”) can only illustrate how such different “things” - deity and humanity can be united together 76. A similar opinion is shared by Art. McKinion, who says that the anthropological example is not intended to illustrate the image of the union of divinity and humanity in Christ (since this is a mystery), but only to demonstrate the unity of the Person of Christ 77. On the other hand, the most famous analogies used by Nestorians and Monophysites have one significant flaw: based on the comparison of things of the same nature, a certain conclusion is drawn that the divine and human are united in a similar way in Christ. Thus, the teacher of Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was posthumously condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, offers an analogy of the intercourse of a husband and wife to describe the image of the union of two natures in Christ. Later, extreme Monophysites will use the analogy of how a drop of water is swallowed up by the ocean of the sea, just as the human nature of the Word was swallowed up by the Divine. But these are things of different natures, most ontologically distant from each other! And such analogies, in our opinion, are completely incorrect. And further attempts to understand through analogies the exceptional fact of the incarnation of God the Word could not be completely crowned with success. The analogy of the infusion of the Divine in the special chosen ones of God can always give only two Hypostases instead of unity and a prophet (even a special one, but one of many) instead of the true Son of God. The analogy of the unification of spiritual and physical nature in the individual being of a person is insufficient, if only because the bodily organization of a person does not have the independent existence characteristic of human nature as a whole, and the whole difficulty of the task lies precisely in the answer to the question - how can human nature unite with the divine nature? Actually, this is the main question of Christology, the solution of which is St. Kirill gives mainly in the soteriological aspect. It cannot be said that the argumentation of St. Cyril for the unity of the Son underwent significant changes during the controversy with Nestorius. Thus, in one of his last works “Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς ὁμιλ ί ας τῆς περὶ ἑνὸς υἱοῦ” he proves the unity of the Son based on the fact that the Lord did not condemn children shouting hosanna to the Son of David, due to God alone: Ἄ νθπρωπος ὤ ν ἀνέχ ῃ δοξολογούμενος καὶ ὡ ς Θεὸς ὑμνούμενος ; καὶ τὶ πρὸς ταῦτα Χριστ ό ς ; ἠ γανακτησεν ἆ ρα κατὰ τῶν πα ί δων ; ἀπεσε ί σατο τὴν δοξολογ ί αν ; ἐπετί μησε τοῖς εὐϕημοῦσιν αὐτὸν ὡ ς Θε ό ν ; οὐδαμῶς. (TLG, Unus est Christus) Being a man [you, Christ], glorified, you receive praise as God and receive hymns fitting for God from children. And what does Christ have to do with this? Are you angry with the children? Did He forbid praising Him as God? Not at all." We can also see that Cyril’s expression “one of both is Christ” is used by him, according to Lars Cohen, both before and after the controversy with Nestorius 78. Indeed, in the Commentaries on the Gospel of John we encounter this expression, again and again emphasizing the unity of the Son: “Notice how He, intending to separate himself, albeit by flesh alone, for by the power of the Divinity He is always with us, says that “for a little while yet” He will be with us, completely and completely designating Himself as His part (flesh), so that no one would try to divide Christ alone into two Sons, but so that he would be thought of and accepted as one thing - as the Word born from God the Father, and as a church received from the Holy Virgin, - not because they are of the same essence, but because after the ineffable unity it will be a work of wickedness to cut them apart, for one of both is Christ." 79. Cyril's expression "One and the same Son" was used in the Chalcedonian oros. This expression is found in interpretations of the Gospel of John, where the passage about the assurance of Thomas is interpreted: "... Thomas brought his confession to Him, thus not dividing Emmanuel into two sons, but recognizing One and the same with the flesh, for one is Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 8, 6; Eph. 4, 5; Jude 4)" 80. This is probably why many authors note the contribution of St. Cyril to the Chalcedonian dogma. This is precisely what T. Vanandy means when he says that “To read the Chalcedonian creed otherwise than through the vision of Cyril is to misinterpret them.”81 That is, the study of the Chalcedonian dogma is impossible without understanding the theological language of St. Kirill. 6.3. Distinction between the two natures in Christ. Despite some vagueness in terminology, St. Kirill clearly distinguishes between the two natures even after the union. The fullness of the Savior’s human nature is evidenced by at least his explanation of the formula μία ϕύσις, which we will discuss in detail in paragraph 6.5. St. Cyril's attempt to show the difference between the two natures is based on emphasizing the unity of the person of Christ. Unfortunately, he does not find suitable terminology to clearly show this difference. However, despite some vagueness in terminology, St. Cyril clearly distinguishes two natures in Christ, emphasizing, on the one hand, the separate existence of the Son, on the other, the unity of the Person. As is known, the unclear expressions of St. Cyril (especially the formula μία ϕύσις) became the reason for the accusation of St. Cyril in Apollinarism on the part of the Antiochian theologians. But in the interpretations of the verse “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) St. Kirill writes this: "We speak the same thing about the Father and the Son, not confusing them in number (τάς ἐν ἀριθμῷ μονάδας), as some call the Father and the Son one and the same (person), but believing that there is a special (hypostatic) Father and a special Son, bringing the two into one identity of essence and considering them to have one power, so that each is in the Other unchangeably and completely” 82. From what follows we can conclude how St. Kirill distinguishes two natures: “Being God, the Word from the Father became flesh, according to the word of John (John 1:14), - did not turn into flesh, but made the church from the Holy Virgin His flesh. So that in this way we do not consider His word human and do not alienate the teaching of the Gospel from the Divine nature, but believe that it is from God who is above all, He prudently and very beautifully, as He appeared in human form, again assimilates His word to the Divine nature, in the person of God and the Father, from Whom and in Whom He is by nature, as the radiance and Word of Him and the reflection of His hypostasis (Heb. 1:3) "83. On the other hand, speaking about the assurance of Thomas, St. Cyril clearly teaches about the One Person of Christ: “Lord by nature and God even when he became man. In fact, take into account that after touching the hands, feet and sides, Thomas brought Him his confession, thus not dividing Emmanuel into two sons, but recognizing One and the same with the flesh, for one is Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5; Jude 4)” 84. It should further be noted that the human nature of Christ is reflected in Cyril's terms and as ἄνθρωπος in the interpretations of the sixth, “Eucharistic” chapter of the Gospel of John. A number of terms (even if purely psychological), according to the remark of the Greek Orthodox theologian K. Dracellas, can only be understood if the fullness of human nature is recognized in Christ. Here is a translation of these words from A. Dvoretsky’s dictionary: ἀδημονέω to worry, to worry, torment, torment, to be upset: ἀδημονῆσαι τὰς ψυχάς Xen. be mentally depressed; ἀ. τινι and ὑπ ό τινος Plat. to be tormented by smth. (or from something). κλα ί ω 1) cry, sob (επ ί τινι and ἐπ ί τινα): 2) mourn λ ῡ πεω to disturb, embarrass, oppress, oppress, torment, torment, annoy, upset, depress, torment πτο έ ω med.-pass. (i.e. πτο έ ωμαι) to be horrified, to be frightened Here are examples of the use of these expressions in the Commentaries on the Gospel of John: ... καὶ πτοεῖται καὶ ἀδημονεῖ κατὰ τὸν τοῦ πάθους καιρὸν αὐτὸς παθ ὼ ν ἀναγέγραπται τὰ μ ό ν ῃ τῇ ἀνθρωπ ό τητι πρέποντα πάθη [TLG, Work #002 1.224.26 to Work #002 1.224.29]. “The Son of Man came down from heaven. He experiences fear, is horrified and exhausted during suffering, and suffering is attributed to Him, characteristic only of humanity, as if He Himself had suffered” 85. Saint Cyril also speaks in his interpretation of the Lord’s conversation about the prediction of His death in John. 12 that the Lord thirsted and was weary in His soul, and was troubled by suffering. We will also talk in detail about the fact that the Lord has a rational human soul in paragraph 6.5 in connection with the refutation of the Apollinarian understanding of the formula μία ϕύσις. 6.4. Christological meaning of the Eucharist. In many exegetical and dogmatic-polemic works of St. Cyril we encounter the theme of the Eucharist. In accordance with general church teaching, the saint speaks about the reality of the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, by partaking of which we receive the life-giving and sanctifying power of Christ. The doctrine of the Eucharist also has an ecclesiological aspect - the Church as the Body of Christ is considered in the light of Christological dogma. Once again we can be convinced that the suspicions of the Antioch theologians about the “Apollinarism” of St. Cyril were unfounded after reading the following (remembering what “flesh” means in the theological language of St. Cyril): “And we by no means affirm that God the Word (being) from the Father was transformed into the nature of the flesh, nor that the flesh passed into the Word, for both remain what is by nature, and one of both is Christ. But ineffably and beyond the understanding of man, the Word, having united with His flesh and, as it were, transferring all of it into Himself by the power that can give life to that which needs life, expelled from our nature corruption and removed death, which initially received power (over us) due to sin" 86. As we see, here Saint Cyril also clearly speaks about the purpose of the Lord’s incarnation - our salvation as victory over death and corruption and the restoration of fallen human nature. Christ is not only an ideal moral example. He is the source of our completely real deification. Therefore, for St. Cyril, the Eucharist is a completely real means of our revitalization, as evidenced, for example, by his explanation of the 11th anathematism 87. It is interesting that the previously Lutheran and now Orthodox theologian Yaroslav Pelikan sees the main difference between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of theology precisely in the difference in the Christology of St. Cyril and Theodore of Mopsuestia: St. Cyril bases his Christology on the Eucharistic doctrine, but Theodore does not 88 . St. Cyril closely connects the Eucharist and the deification of man. If he speaks of spiritual sanctification as supernatural, then it is the Eucharist that is the means of “natural sanctification” and adoption. Indeed, Ὁ γάρ τοι Μονογενὴς ὡ ς Θεὸς πρωτ ό τοκος ἐν ἡμῖν καθ ’ ἕ νωσιν οἰκονομικ ή ν, καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελϕοῖς ὡ ς ἄνθρωπος, ἵ να καὶ ἡμεῖς ὡ ς ἐν αὐτῷ τε καὶ δι ' αὐτὸν υἱοι Θεοῦ ϕυσικῶς τε καὶ κατὰ χάριν. Φυσικῶς μὲν ὡ ς ἐν αὐτῷ τε καὶ μ ό ν ῳ, μεθεκτῶς δὲ καὶ κατὰ χάριν ἡμεῖς δι ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν Πνεύματι . [De incarn. Unig., TLG, Work #026 700.6 to #026 700.11] So, He is both the Only Begotten and the First Begotten, the Only Begotten as God, the First Begotten in us through the economic union, and in many brothers as Man, therefore we will become in Him and through Him sons of God naturally (naturally) and by grace. Naturally - in Him and only [in Him], but by communion and by grace - through Him in the Spirit. This fragment from the scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten (as well as from the Epistle to the Queens on the right faith) draws the attention of the priests. Oleg Davydenkov 89 and ig. Gregory (V.M. Lurie). Here we should especially note the expression καὶ μ ό ν ῳ – and only [in Him – in the Son]. If many fathers of the Eastern Church speak about deification by grace, in the Spirit, then the idea of ​​natural, physical sanctification through the Son, in the Son and only in Him, is a peculiar feature of the Christology of St. Kirill. Speaking about bodily sanctification, St. Cyril means the Eucharist. Christ sanctifies us (even after departing to Heaven with His Flesh), using His Eucharistic Body as a kind of instrument. Flesh of Christ "is thought of and recognized as the church of the Word, to that extent, without a doubt, it must be the cause of both holiness and life, but precisely not thanks, of course, to itself, but thanks to God united with it, who is holy and life. Therefore, relating everything to the effectiveness of the Divinity, he says that for His disciples His departure with the flesh, in relation to their preservation, will not have any harm. After all, even if He hides in heaven, the Savior will not be absent from those who love Him, but will continue to be with them by the power of His Divinity" 90. After all, “the very body of the Lord was sanctified by the power of the Word united with it, which is why it is effective for us in the mysterious blessing (Eucharist), so that it can implant its holiness in us” 91. The union that we receive with Christ in the Eucharist is so real that it is thought of by St. Cyril as being like the union of two pieces of wax: “Just as if someone connects one wax with another, then he will, of course, see one wax appearing in the other; in exactly the same way, I believe, he who accepts the Flesh of our Savior Christ and drinks His precious Blood, as He Himself says, becomes one with Him, as if co-dissolving and uniting with Him through this perception (the Blood and Flesh of Christ), so that he is found in Christ and vice versa - Christ is also in him." 92. or a combination of dough and leaven: “a very small eulogy (i.e. Eucharist - V.N.) kneads our whole body (like dough) and fills it with its power, so that Christ abides in us, and we also in Him, for with all justice we can say that the leaven is in the whole dough, and the dough in the same way is in the whole leaven” 93. St. Cyril speaks about the natural communion received in the Eucharist, interpreting the verses of John’s Gospel in which the Lord speaks of Himself as a vine: “not only by mood, which consists in spiritual disposition, will Christ abide in us, as He says, but also by communion, of course natural” 94. Thus, the sanctification of our flesh is not fundamentally different from the sanctification of the humanity of Christ Himself. After all, Christ does not have a special human hypostasis, and the unity of Christ with humanity is conceived at the level of natural community, i.e. the entire human race. The very method of sanctification of Christ’s humanity does not separate it from us, since human nature in Christ is sanctified not by virtue of hypostatic union (after all, then the Lord would be separated from us in His humanity), but by virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit was imparted to the human nature of the Savior. And then we can say that in Christ God the Word communicates His Spirit to all mankind: “By giving the communion of the Holy Spirit, He Himself is sanctified for our sake in the Holy Spirit, and it is not anyone else who sanctifies Him, but, on the contrary, He Himself does this to Himself, for the sanctification of His flesh. After all, He receives His own Spirit, and accepts it precisely because He was a man, - however, He also gives It to Himself, like God. And He did it for us, and not for Himself. received its beginning from Him and in Him first, the grace of sanctification would have passed in this way to the entire race" 95. Further, Saint Cyril explains in detail why He who has no need for sanctification, being holy by nature, “was sanctified, and moreover through the communion (of the Spirit).” The point is that: “(His) flesh was sanctified through the Spirit, since the Word, holy by nature and from God, in likeness with other creation, anointed His own church with Him (the Spirit)” 96. This was, in the opinion of St. Cyril, absolutely necessary, since sanctification is necessary for any Christian, and if our Lord Jesus Christ Himself consecrated His own church, then how great is the need for our sanctification. We cannot be sanctified by the direct action of the Holy Spirit because we are different individuals. But this sanctification can be, as we showed above, indirectly, through the communion of Christ with humanity 97. Arguing in a similar way, D. Keating noted that the spiritual sanctification that we receive in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is conceived precisely as the path to bodily sanctification through the Eucharist 98 . 6.5. The formula μία φύσις, the possibility of its Orthodox understanding. There are two approaches to explaining how St. Kirill understood this formula. For example, Rev. John of Damascus insisted that when we say “incarnate,” this means the fullness of humanity. On the other hand, A.I. Brilliantov, together with all modern theologians, shows that St. Cyril was bound by the established opinion that this formula belonged to St. Athanasius, which was in fact an Apollinarian forgery. The followers of Apollinaris, unanimously condemned both in the East and in the West, after his death were divided into two parts: strict, so-called Sinusiasts 99, who separated from the church and considered only Apollinaris Orthodox, and moderates, who did not want to break ties with the church and, together with Apollinaris, recognized St. Afanasia. In this party, whose members sometimes, although insincerely, joined Orthodoxy, the idea probably arose to inscribe, in order to more successfully disseminate Apollinarian views in the church, a number of works belonging to Apollinaris (and, possibly, his disciples) with the names of Orthodox fathers: St. Gregory the Wonderworker, St. Athanasius of Alexandria and Popes Julius and Felix. The forgery was made at the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th century, most likely in Egypt. In these false writings there is still no point of view of Apollinaris that the human mind was replaced in Christ by the Logos. And St. Cyril quotes letters to Prosdokius and Maximus, which say that Christ, being perfect God, became perfect man after the incarnation 100. Another thing is that this perfection is understood in a certain special, Apollinarian sense. Nevertheless, this explains the relative success of this forgery. Therefore, the use of the formula in these scriptures did not arouse suspicion. For Apollinaris, the meaning of the formula μία φύσις was obvious: “incarnate,” that is, not “incarnate” (Logos perceived only flesh with its animal soul, but without spirit, i.e., the rational soul). Of course, St. Cyril did not mean anything of the kind, although just such a formula gave the Antiochians serious reasons for suspicion of Apollinarism. Interpreting verse John. 6, 39, St. Cyril writes that "As a sign of His inherent love for mankind," the Lord Jesus Christ "considered giving His soul for us" 101. From the above quote we see that the Savior has a human soul, which is an active soteriological factor. For only with a human soul could the Savior endure his sufferings intelligently and consciously: "The idea of death that appeared (in the soul of Christ) tries to confuse Jesus, and the power of the Divine immediately takes possession of the suffering caused and immediately transforms the excited fear into incomparable boldness. ... Through them (human feelings and states) it was necessary for Him not in appearance and in mental representation, but, on the contrary, naturally and truly to appear as a man, born of a wife, bearing in himself everything human, except sin. Fear and timidity is a natural passion in us, not one of the sins.” Here we see that St. Cyril anticipates the teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor on natural and immaculate passions, which will later be described in the 72nd chapter of “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by St. John of Damascus 102. “And besides, human states were beneficially aroused in Christ, not so that these arousals took possession (of Him) and became more and more intensified, as is the case with us, but so that, overcome by the power of the Word, they ceased, with the transformation of nature in the first Christ into some better and Divine state. In this way, and not otherwise, the image of healing could pass on to us, for in Christ, as the firstfruits, human nature was elevated to the renewal of life. In Him we also acquired the supernatural, which is why He is called the Second Adam in the Divine Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:45). And if, as a man, He thirsted and labored, then He is embarrassed by suffering as a human condition. that He also had a rational soul. Just as thirst or some similar state is a passion (or state) characteristic of the flesh, so confusion through the presentation of terrible objects must be a passion (or state) of the rational soul, in which alone the idea and consciousness of this can appear in us. Even before he was on the cross, Christ was already embarrassed, obviously contemplating the future and moved by His mind to imagine the suffering that awaited Him. After all, we will not call the passion (state) of timidity the passion of either the impassive Divinity or, of course, the flesh. And if something that has an unreasonable soul (an animal) is embarrassed and experiences fear, then it is not through an idea or by contemplating future suffering with reason that it comes into fear, but when it is overwhelmed by the misfortune itself, then only it begins to experience a feeling of real danger. Now the Lord is embarrassed not by what he sees, but by what he imagines and what he expects. That is why Christ did not say: “My flesh was troubled,” but “My soul,” rejecting the assumption of the heretics." 103. So here we have a good anti-Apollinarian argument - i.e. Saint Cyril was not an Apollinarian, not only in essence, but even formally. And it must be emphasized that St. Cyril understands the formula μία φύσις completely differently than the Antiochians. “Not in the sense of one essence, but to emphasize that Christ is one being.” 104. Such an explanation of the possibility of the Orthodox understanding of this formula is possible, but not the only one. According to Rev. I. Meyendorff, the ambiguity of this formula is overcome by the fact that later “Leontius of Jerusalem proposed an interpretation of the formula “one suffered from the Holy Trinity,” which established an absolute difference between hypostasis and nature, a difference that was not fully accepted by St. Cyril, nor the Antioch theologians..." 105. During the time of St. Cyril, the triadological terminology of the Great Cappadocians, in which hypostasis is distinguished from nature as an individual being from a generic one, still does not pass into Christology - neither in Nestorius nor in St. Kirill (with rare exceptions). New Christological terminology will be developed already in the 430s. St. Proclus of Constantinople, to then be formulated and enshrined in the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. Contemporary Catholic theologian Thomas Vanandy writes that St. Cyril accepted the formula μία φύσις not in the sense that Christ has one nature, but in the sense of the ontological unity of the subject (similar to the unity of soul and body in man), i.e. we are talking, in essence, about the unity of the hypostasis of Christ: "... Cyril did not use the formula μία φύσις to support the idea of one nature in the sense of one essence, but rather he mainly uses it to emphasize that Christ is one being. The key to this interpretation, which I have recently comprehended, is in the likening of the Incarnation to the unity of soul and body, which is what Cyril did. He fundamentally and almost exclusively insists on the formula of unity soul/body, which naturally exists both before and after his formula μία φύσις to show that just as the soul and body of man are ontologically united in the form of one reality or nature - the existence of man, so the Son of God is ontologically one in the form of one reality of Jesus" 106 . Lars Cohen defends approximately the same point of view. He notes that tracing the use of the term ϕύσις in patristic vocabulary is a rather difficult task. But it can be clearly said that St. Kirill uses the term ϕύσις in the sense of a person, a subject. And to emphasize the fullness of human nature in Christ, the terms σάρξ, οἰκονομ ί α, and ἀνθπρ ώ πινον are used. In any case, it is clear that this is not specific to Cyril’s Christology; these terms were used by St. Athanasius, Didymus, Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa 107. In the “controversial” work “On the Holy Trinity” by St. Cyril clearly says that he does not consider the use of the expression μία φύσις ... to indicate one nature of the Lord: ? ἕ να τὸν αὐτὸν ε ἶ ναι διασαϕεῖ τὸν ἐνεργοῦντα : καὶ θεϊκῶς καὶ ἀνθρωπικῶς : ο ὔ τε τὰ θεῖα κατὰ Θε ό ν : ἄνθρωπος γάρ : ο ὔ τε κατ ’ ἄνθρωπον τὰ ἀνθρ ώ πινα : Θεὸς γάρ . Ὡ σαύτως καὶ ὁ μ ί αν ϕύσιν εἰρικ ὼ ς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένην, οὐ μι ᾶ ς ϕύσεως τὸν Κύριον ἐδογμάτισε. Τὸ γὰρ σεσαρκωμένην προσθεὶς, τὴν τοιαύτην ἀνεῖλεν ὑπ ό νοιαν. Ἑ τέρα γὰρ ἡ τοῦ Λόγου ϕύσις , ἤ γουν ἡ θε ί α : καὶ ἑτέρα πάλιν ἡ τῆς σαρκὸς , ἤ γουν ἡ ἀνθρωπικὴ συνεκδοχικῶς [TLG, Work #123 77.1160.9 to Work #123 77.1160.18]. What has been said does not mean a confusion of actions, but shows that the same One acted, both in Divinity and in humanity. It is not that He does divine things according to the Divinity, for He is a man; and not to do what is human according to humanity, for He is God. In the same way, the expression “one nature of God the Word incarnate” does not teach us about the one nature of the Lord. The word “incarnate” destroys this idea. After all, the Word has one nature, that is, divine, and another nature has the flesh, that is, human; their names are synecdoche. Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which the naming of a part implies the whole (for example, “a factory needs workers”, “cheerful legs run along the path”). In the same way, in the theological language of St. Cyril, the word “flesh” is used in the meaning of “man”, and “Word” in the meaning of “God”. This term is present in the ancient Greek-Russian dictionary of A. Dvoretsky and has been traditional since the time of Aristotle. Despite the fact that the above-mentioned work “On the Holy Trinity” is attributed to St. Eulogy, Archbishop. Alexandrian, similar terminology is used by St. Cyril in his Commentaries on the Gospel of John: “... although we say incarnate, we do not affirm by this that the Word of God was clothed in flesh alone, but in the name of flesh we designate the whole person” 108. One of the reasons why this synecdoche is used may be the need to proclaim the unity of the Son: "... completely and completely designating Himself as His part (flesh), so that no one would try to divide the one Christ into two Sons, but so that he would be thought and accepted as a single something - as the Word born from God the Father, and as a church received from the Holy Virgin - not because they are of the same essence, but because after the ineffable unity, it would be a work of wickedness to cut them apart, for one of both is Christ" 109. It should further be noted that nowhere in the works of St. Kirill we will not find the expressions “one nature of the Lord”, “one nature of Christ”, which is confirmed by the following words: “He who spoke of the one nature of God the Word incarnate did not assert the one nature of the Lord” [PG 77, col. 1160a]. But only a few researchers (the author knows of only two - out of a huge number of those who wrote about St. Cyril - namely, priest Oleg Davydenkov 110 and Father Gregory (V.M. Lurie) wrote that there is another, soteriological understanding of the formula μία φύσις. The researchers of the heritage of St. Cyril cited by us (T. Waynendi, L. Cohen, St. McKinion) did not pay attention to the specific understanding of the term “nature” by St. Kirill. This understanding is easy to miss when you see St. Cyril only Christology, without the connection of his Christology with other aspects of the Orthodox faith, primarily with the doctrine of salvation. Indeed, if we consider his concept of “ϕύσις” only in the Christological sense, then it will turn out to be equal to the concept of “hypostasis” (in the sense of real and, at the same time, individual existence). This is probably where Cyril’s statements about the one hypostasis of Christ come from, for example: “All the sayings in the Gospels should be attributed to one person (προσώπω), to one hypostasis of the incarnate Word, for there is one Lord Jesus Christ, according to these sayings” 111. (although in Pusey's edition of the Commentaries on the Gospel of John these passages are omitted as a later insertion, since this passage literally appears in the letter to Nestorius 112). But the very concept of “ϕύσις” of Christ in St. Cyril is much more voluminous and is not limited to its Christological dimension. And here we come to one of the main soteriological ideas of St. Kirill. By saying “µ ία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη”, he means not only the individual humanity of Jesus, but also the entire fullness of deified humanity - all saved and being saved. Having become incarnate, Christ united with humanity at the level of the race, and not the individual. And everything that happens to the humanity of Christ, everything happens for us and our salvation. And this is the radical difference between the teachings of St. Cyril from subsequent Monophysitism, which would reduce the concept of humanity within the “single nature” of Christ to the individual humanity of Jesus. Thus, in the denial of the Orthodox teaching about the deification of man and the incarnation of God, the opposites will converge - Monophysitism and Nestorianism. Actually, Nestorius himself did not hide this: “And we call Christ, who is in the flesh and born of the Virgin Mary, God, but only because of his union with God, so that no one would reproach us for deifying man.” 113 6.6. Сommunicatio idiomatum as an explanation of the image of the union of two natures in Christ. The creation of the terminology “communicatio idiomatum” (communication of properties) is a positive consequence of Cyril’s Christology. Perhaps this is precisely what allows us to ward off accusations of excessive interest in the Divinity of the Savior from the Alexandrian Saint; in a superficial interest in His humanity 114. And if Saint Cyril wrote a lot and in detail about the communication of properties at the height of the period of polemics with Nestorius, then in the Commentaries on the Gospel of John we can read all the main ideas of this terminology: “And although the Word of God itself came down from heaven, he nevertheless says that the Son of Man came down, not wanting to divide Him after His incarnation into two persons and not allowing anyone to say that one Son is the One who became the church taken from the Virgin for the salvation of people, and the other is the Word Who appeared from God the Father, and, however, it is necessary to distinguish the properties of His natures (both the Son of God and the Son of Man). As the Word is born from God, so and man is from the woman, One, however, of both, Christ, indivisible in sonship and in Divine glory. Otherwise, how does He attribute to the church from the Virgin such properties that properly belong to the Word alone, and, on the contrary, assimilates to Himself what belongs only to the flesh? And now He says that the Son of Man came down from heaven, He experiences fear, is horrified and exhausted during suffering, and suffering is attributed to Him. characteristic of humanity alone, as if He Himself suffered" 115. So, Saint Cyril asserts that the two natures are inseparably united in one Person and there has been no confusion between them. Two natures retain their properties in One Person. They are inseparably united in one Person, and no one nature overshadows the other. Both natures transfer their properties into one Hypostasis, which can be called in this case the “Center”, in which the two natures are united and at the same time no new, “third” nature appears 116. L. Cohen also draws parallels between the anti-Nestorian polemic of St. Cyril and the anti-Apollinarian polemic of St. Gregory of Nyssa 117 . It is also interesting that T. Vanandy criticizes Ruth Siddals (not only him, by the way) for her excessive enthusiasm for the “subject-accidental Christological model.” So, if, according to it, it turns out that “the Son, being by nature God, actually possesses divine attributes as a part of His being, acquires, in the process of the Incarnation, human attributes as “virtual accidents”” ('virtual accidents'). However, according to St. Cyril, to be a man is what the Son of God _is_ and thus, communicatio idiomatum is not some kind of betrothal to the Son of predicates of random properties, but a statement about His real way of being or mode of existence: " She insists that Cyril's main use of the term communicatio idiomatum is a subject-accidental Christological model, i.e., while the Son, being by nature God, actually possesses divine attributes as part of his being, in the Incarnation he acquires human properties as “actual accidents (random properties)." Cyril “interprets humanity, etc. mystically inherent in the Word as accidents within subject." However, according to Cyril, to be the Son of God is to be human, and, thus, communicatio idiomatum is not simply a betrothal to the Son of accidental predicates, but a statement about the real way of His being or mode of existence" 118. St. made an invaluable contribution to the theological understanding of the Sacrament of the Incarnation. Cyril of Alexandria, who pointed out that no new person appears in the Incarnation, a human hypostasis different from the Divine does not exist in Christ, just as no change occurs in the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. However, despite the obvious progress in understanding the saying “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14), the theological language of St. Cyril needed clarification, which was done at the IV and V Ecumenical Councils. According to St. Cyril, the union of two natures in Christ consists in the fact that one Person, namely, the Son of God, God the Word, led with Himself two natures - Divine and human, and by human here we mean the human nature common to all people, i.e. the union of body and soul. Humanity in Christ, despite its fullness, is not a personal person, not a special individual. About how Christ was or could have been a true man, without having a special human personality, St. Cyril does not answer this question 119. And it took almost two centuries to establish a genuine connection between the views of St. Cyril and the dogmatic decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, and thanks to Leontius of Byzantium, the Chalcedonites finally formally agreed to identify the hypostasis of Christ with the eternal hypostasis of the Word. Thus, according to Leontius, the Word did not take on human hypostasis, but human nature, common to all of us. The difference between Jesus Christ and us is that in our case, human nature (common to all people) always exists in a specific and unique human hypostasis. Christ does not have such a separate human hypostasis. His hypostasis is the Divine Word, in whose image all human persons were created. But from here we can draw a fundamental soteriological conclusion: Christ united with humanity at the level of the race, and not the individual. And everything that happens to the humanity of Christ, everything happens for us and our salvation. Emphasizing that this “natural” sonship of those being saved takes place in the Logos, and not in other hypostases (not in the Spirit), St. Cyril makes it clear that this concept is connected with the Incarnation of God, accomplished precisely by one hypostasis of the Logos. It is quite obvious (and this was noticed by those researchers who noted the originality of Cyril’s teaching on deification) that, speaking about the “naturalness” of the sonship of the deified, St. Cyril means precisely “the one incarnate nature of God the Word.” Thus, the concept of the “nature” of the incarnate Word appears in St. Cyril with a concept not only soteriological, but also ecclesiological, corresponding to the concept of the Body of Christ as the Church. The theological concept of the Church as a single reality, and, moreover, a reality of a different dimension, was not something new, although St. Kirill found a new conceptual expression for it. Orthodox theology has never before believed in Christ, separate from the Church He created, which is His Body. If we are talking about the incarnation of God, then we need to talk about His flesh. The flesh of God in this case is the Church as the Body of Christ. Saint Cyril gave a very direct and profound expression of this faith. And it is not his fault if, in the context of the theological polemics that followed his death, the Church had to look for other words for the same teaching. It is important that we can draw a fundamental conclusion for us that it is impossible to present St. Cyril as some kind of opponent of the Council of Chalcedon; rather, he can be thought of as the predecessor of the Chalcedonian Oros. He was well aware that here no effort of the human mind, no sophisticated language was able to express the God-given truth. Only pious faith and intense spiritual life can bring reconciliation and bring peace to the testing human thought. 1. Cyril of Alexandria, saint. Explanation of the Creed compiled by the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea. // KhCh, 1841, part I, St. Petersburg – p.166–199. 2. Our Holy Father Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. About the Holy and Life-Giving Trinity. // KhCh, 1847, part III, St. Petersburg. - With. 2–54. 3. Our Holy Father Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. About the incarnation of the Lord. // KhCh, 1847, part III, St. Petersburg – pp. 165–238. 4. Cyril of Alexandria, saint. 1. A word against those who do not want to recognize the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God. 2. Conversation with Nestorius about the fact that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, and not the Mother of Christ. Sergiev Posad, 1915 – 28 p. 5. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 1. Of Worship and Service in Spirit and Truth. Parts 1–3. M.: “Pilgrim”, 2000. 6. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 2. Glafira or skillful explanations of selected passages from the Pentateuch of Moses. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Part 1. M.: “Pilgrim”, 2001. – 798 p. 7. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – 910 p. 8. Eastern fathers and teachers of the Church of the 5th century. Anthology: Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Corpus Areopagiticum. / Comp., biogr. and bibliogr. articles by Hierom. Hilarion (Alfeev) - M.: MIPT Publishing House. 2000 – 418 p. 9 . John of Damascus, Rev. An accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith. Rostov n/d, 1992 – 614 p. 10. Early Church Fathers. Brussels: Publishing House “Life with God”, 1988 – 734 p. 11. TLG Workplace, Electronic Library. Copyright 1993, 1999 by Silver Mountain Software. 12. Mirolyubov A. Sermons of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Kyiv: Printing house T.G. Korczak-Nowitsky, 1899. – 300 p. 13. [Thierry A.] Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, 5th century heresiarch. “Revised and expanded translation from French by D. Pospehov, Honored Professor of the Kyiv Academy. M.: “By the way of grain”, 1997. – 207 p. 14. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. T. IV. – repr. ed. – M.: Publishing House of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1997. – 378 p. 15. Brilliantov A.I. The origin of Monophysitism. // KhCh, 1906, No. 4. – p.793–822. 16. Brilliantov A.I. The influence of Eastern theology on Western theology in the works of John Scott Erigena. – M., 1998 – 496 p. 17. Sylvester (Malevansky), bishop. Experience of Orthodox dogmatic theology (with a historical presentation of dogmas). T. IV. Kiev, 1889 – 875 p. 18. Sokolov Vasily, priest. Leontius of Byzantium. His life and literary works. Sergiev Posad, 1916 – 488 p. 19. Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical Councils. M., 1994 – 743 p. 20. Kern, Cyprian, archimandrite. Anthropology of Saint Gregory Palamas. Paris, 1950 – 449 p. 21. Florovsky G., prot. Eastern fathers of the V-VIII centuries. M., 1992 – 260 p. 22. Meyendorff I., prot. Introduction to Patristic Theology. NY., 1986 – 428 p. 23. Meyendorff I., prot. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. M.: PSTBI, 2000 – 318 p. 24. Meyendorff I., prot. Byzantine theology. Historical trends and doctrinal themes. Minsk, 2001 25. Lossky Vl. Mystical theology of the Eastern Church. // BT, No. 8 M., 1966. 26. Lossky Vl. Theology and God-vision. M., 2000 – 637 p. 27. Clément Olivier. Origins. M. 1993 – 412 p. 28. Davydenkov O., ier. Traditional non-Chalcedonian Christology. M., PSTBI, 1998 – 207 p. 29. Davydenkov O., ier. The great mystery of piety “God appeared in the flesh.” M., PSTBI, 2002 – 182 p. 30. Davydenkov O., ier. Some features of the soteriological teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria. // Annual Theological Conference of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute: Materials 2004. M.: Publishing House of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University. 2004. – p. 17–22. 31. Pashkov Dimitri, priest. The Pope of Alexandria: from the Council of Nicea to Chalcedon. http://www.sedmitza.ru/index.html?sid427&did15808&p_commentdiscussion 32. Weinandy Thomas G. Cyril and the Mystery of the Incarnation. In the collection Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Critical appreciation. NY, 2000 – 269 p. 33. Young F. "Theotokos". // In the collection Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Critical appreciation. « NY, 2000 – 269 p. 34. Keating Daniel A. Divinisation in Cyril: The Appropriation of Divine Life. // In the collection Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Critical appreciation. NY, 2000 – 269 p. 35. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – 149 p. 36. Siddals Ruth. Logic and Christology in Cyril of Alexandria. // J. of Theol. Stud. NS 38(1987) – 79 pp. 37. McKinion Steven. Words, imagery and the mystery of Christ: a reconstruction of Cyril of Alexandria’s christology. Leiden; Boston; Koln: Brill, 2000 – 314 p. Meyendorff I., prot. Byzantine theology. Historical trends and doctrinal themes. – Minsk, 2001. – P. 23. Davydenkov O., Hierarch. Traditional non-Chalcedonian Christology. – M., PSTBI, 1998 – P. 14. Florovsky G., prot. Eastern fathers of the V-VIII centuries. – M., 1992 – P. 260. Meyendorff I., prot. Introduction to Patristic Theology. – NY., 1986 – P. 428. Meyendorff I., prot. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. – M.: PSTBI, 2000 – P. 318. Davydenkov O., Hierarch. The great mystery of piety “God appeared in the flesh.” – M., PSTBI, 2002 – P. 182. Davydenkov O., Hierarch. Some features of the soteriological teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria. // Annual Theological Conference of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute: Materials 2004 - M.: Publishing House of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University. 2004. – pp. 17–22. Lossky Vl. Theology and God-vision. – M., 2000 – P. 637. Clément Olivier. Origins. – M. 1993 – P. 412. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – S. 149. Weinandy Thomas G. Cyril and the Mystery of the Incarnation. In the collection Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Critical appreciation. – NY, 2000 – S. 24. McKinion Steven. Words, imagery and the mystery of Christ: a reconstruction of Cyril of Alexandria’s christology. Leiden; Boston; Koln: Brill, 2000 – S 314. Siddals Ruth. Logic and Christology in Cyril of Alexandria. // J. of Theol. Stud. NS 38(1987) – P.79. Pashkov Dimitri, priest. The Pope of Alexandria: from the Council of Nicea to Chalcedon. http://www.sedmitza.ru/index.html?sid427&did15808&p_commentdiscussion Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 1. Of Worship and Service in Spirit and Truth. Parts 1–3. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2000. – P. 14. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 1. Of Worship and Service in Spirit and Truth. Parts 1–3. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2000. – P. 14. Mirolyubov A. Sermons of St. Cyril of Alexandria. – Kyiv: Printing house T.G. Korczak-Novitsky, 1899. – P. 40. Mirolyubov A. Sermons of St. Cyril of Alexandria. – Kyiv: Printing house T.G. Korczak-Novitsky, 1899. – P. 41. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 1. Of Worship and Service in Spirit and Truth. Parts 1–3. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2000. – P. 32. Brilliantov A.I. The influence of Eastern theology on Western theology in the works of John Scott Erigena. – M., 1998 – P. 496. Eastern fathers and teachers of the Church of the 5th century. Anthology: Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Corpus Areopagiticum. / Comp., biogr. and bibliogr. articles by Hierom. Hilarion (Alfeev) - M.: MIPT Publishing House. 2000 – P. 61. Eastern fathers and teachers of the Church of the 5th century. Anthology: Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Corpus Areopagiticum. / Comp., biogr. and bibliogr. articles by Hierom. Hilarion (Alfeev) - M.: MIPT Publishing House. 2000 – P. 62. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 1. Of Worship and Service in Spirit and Truth. Parts 1–3. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2000. – P. 41. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – P. 16. Sylvester (Malevansky), bishop. Experience of Orthodox dogmatic theology (with a historical presentation of dogmas). T. IV. Kiev, 1889 – P. 75. John of Damascus, Rev. An accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith. Rostov-on-Don, 1992 – P. 276. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 1. Of Worship and Service in Spirit and Truth. Parts 1–3. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2000. – P. 40. Eastern fathers and teachers of the Church of the 5th century. Anthology: Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Corpus Areopagiticum. / Comp., biogr. and bibliogr. articles by Hierom. Hilarion (Alfeev) - M.: MIPT Publishing House. 2000 – P. 110. Young F. "Theotokos". // In the collection Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Critical appreciation. / NY, 2000 – p. 17. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – P. 17. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – P. 22. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – P. 21. Davydenkov O., Hierarch. Traditional non-Chalcedonian Christology. – M., PSTBI, 1998 – P. 83. Davydenkov O., Hierarch. Traditional non-Chalcedonian Christology. – M., PSTBI, 1998 – P. 23. TLG, Gregorius Nazianzenus, Work #002 101.20.1 Eastern fathers and teachers of the Church of the 5th century. Anthology: Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Corpus Areopagiticum. / Comp., biogr. and bibliogr. articles by Hierom. Hilarion (Alfeev) - M.: MIPT Publishing House. 2000 – P. 45. Davydenkov O., Hierarch. The great mystery of piety “God appeared in the flesh.” – M., PSTBI, 2002 – P. 82. Davydenkov O., Hierarch. Some features of the soteriological teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria. // Annual Theological Conference of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute: Materials 2004. M.: Publishing House of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University. 2004. – P. 20. Meyendorff I., prot. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. M.: PSTBI, 2000 – P. 127. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 2. Glafira or skillful explanations of selected passages from the Pentateuch of Moses. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Part 1. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2001. – P. 515–523. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 159. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 156. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 742. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 2. Glafira or skillful explanations of selected passages from the Pentateuch of Moses. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Part 1. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2001. – P. 565. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – P. 39. Early Church Fathers. – Brussels: Publishing House “Life with God”, 1988 – P. 688. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 2. Glafira or skillful explanations of selected passages from the Pentateuch of Moses. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Part 1. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2001. – P. 528. Our Holy Father Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of the Lord. // KhCh, 1847, part III, St. Petersburg – P. 174. Weinandy Thomas G. Cyril and the Mystery of the Incarnation. In the collection Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Critical appreciation. NY, 2000 – P. 25. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 559. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 2. Glafira or skillful explanations of selected passages from the Pentateuch of Moses. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Part 1. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2001. – P. 275. Kern, Cyprian, archim. Anthropology of Saint Gregory Palamas. Paris, 1950 – P. 248. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 60. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 562. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – S. 43. Kern, Cyprian, archim. Anthropology of Saint Gregory Palamas. Paris, 1950 – P. 188. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 1. Of Worship and Service in Spirit and Truth. Parts 1–3. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2000. – P. 128. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – S. 44. Meyendorff I., prot. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. M.: PSTBI, 2000 – P. 206. Eastern fathers and teachers of the Church of the 5th century. Anthology: Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Corpus Areopagiticum. / Comp., biogr. and bibliogr. articles by Hierom. Hilarion (Alfeev) - M.: MIPT Publishing House. 2000 – P. 752. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 2. Glafira or skillful explanations of selected passages from the Pentateuch of Moses. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Part 1. M.: “Pilgrim”, 2001. – P. 533. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – p. 749. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 2. Glafira or skillful explanations of selected passages from the Pentateuch of Moses. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Part 1. M.: “Pilgrim”, 2001. – p. 653. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – S. 91. Eastern fathers and teachers of the Church of the 5th century. Anthology: Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Corpus Areopagiticum. / Comp., biogr. and bibliogr. articles by Hierom. Hilarion (Alfeev) - M.: MIPT Publishing House. 2000 – pp. 562–563. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 2. Glafira or skillful explanations of selected passages from the Pentateuch of Moses. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Part 1. M.: “Pilgrim”, 2001. – P. 596. Weinandy Thomas G. Cyril and the Mystery of the Incarnation. In the collection Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Critical appreciation. NY, 2000 – P. 35. Brilliantov A.I. The origin of Monophysitism. // KhCh, 1906, No. 4. – P. 797. Weinandy Thomas G. Cyril and the Mystery of the Incarnation. In the collection Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Critical appreciation. NY, 2000 – P. 33. McKinion Steven. Words, imagery and the mystery of Christ: a reconstruction of Cyril of Alexandria’s christology. Leiden; Boston; Koln: Brill, 2000 – P. 190. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – S. 73. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 480–481. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 883. Weinandy Thomas G. Cyril and the Mystery of the Incarnation. In the collection Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Critical appreciation. NY, 2000 – P. 43. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 376. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 576. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 2. Glafira or skillful explanations of selected passages from the Pentateuch of Moses. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Part 1. M.: “Pilgrim”, 2001. – p. 597. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 40. Eastern fathers and teachers of the Church of the 5th century. Anthology: Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Corpus Areopagiticum. / Comp., biogr. and bibliogr. articles by Hierom. Hilarion (Alfeev) - M.: MIPT Publishing House. 2000 – P. 59. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – P. 74. Davydenkov O., Hierarch. Some features of the soteriological teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria. // Annual Theological Conference of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute: Materials 2004. M.: Publishing House of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University. 2004. – pp. 17–22. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 735. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 734. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 604. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 748. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 750. Davydenkov O., Hierarch. Some features of the soteriological teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria. // Annual Theological Conference of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute: Materials 2004. M.: Publishing House of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University. 2004. – P. 21. Keating Daniel A. Divinisation in Cyril: The Appropriation of Divine Life. // In the collection Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Critical appreciation. NY, 2000 – P. 166. Brilliantov A.I. The origin of Monophysitism. // KhCh, 1906, No. 4. – P. 799. Brilliantov A.I. The origin of Monophysitism. // KhCh, 1906, No. 4. – P. 800. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 15. John of Damascus, Rev. An accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith. Rostov-on-Don, 1992 – P. 386. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 430–431. Meyendorff I., prot. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. M.: PSTBI, 2000 – pp. 86–87. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – P. 80. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – P. 174. Davydenkov O., Hierarch. Some features of the soteriological teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria. // Annual Theological Conference of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute: Materials 2004. M.: Publishing House of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University. 2004. – p. 17–22. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – pp. 376–377. [Thierry A.] Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, 5th century heresiarch. / Revised and expanded translation from French by D. Pospehov, Honored Professor of the Kyiv Academy. M.: “The Way of Grain”, 1997. – P. 43. Weinandy Thomas G. Cyril and the Mystery of the Incarnation. In the collection Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Critical appreciation. NY, 2000 – pp. 28, 31. Works of Saint Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Book 3. Commentaries on the Gospel of John. Parts 2–4. – M.: “Pilgrim”, 2002 – pp. 596–597. Koen Lars. The Saving Passion. Incarnational and Soteriological Thought in Cyril of Alexandriá's Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Uppsala, 1991 – p. 81. Weinandy Thomas G. Cyril and the Mystery of the Incarnation. In the collection Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Critical appreciation. NY, 2000 – P. 47. Sokolov Vasily, priest. Leontius of Byzantium. His life and literary works. Sergiev Posad, 1916 – P. 202.