Sermons of St. Cyril of Alexandria

Contents Personality of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Years of formation Archiepiscopal ministry of St. Kirill. Pre-Destorian period (412 – 429). The period of the Nestorian struggle. Church and theological activities of St. Cyril from the time of the Christological disputes until reconciliation with the “eastern”, and the remaining years of Cyril’s life. Sermons of St. Cyril General view of the preaching activity of St. Cyril. Bibliographical and historical information about his sermons. Easter sermons. The concept of them; determination of the time of appearance of each of them and presentation of the content. Statement of the content of Easter sermons. General comments. Easter sermon of 414 (under No. 1). Sermon of the year 416 (under number 4). Sermon of the year 418 (under number 6). Sermon of the year 420 (under number 8). no. 9). Sermon of the year 423 (no. 11). Sermon of the year 425 (no. 13). Sermon of the year 426 (no. 14). 15th). Sermon of 428 (under no. 16th) Sermon of 429 (under no. 17th). Sermon of 430 (under no. 18 m). Sermon 431 (no. 19). Sermon 432 (under number 20). Sermon 433 (number 21). Sermon 434 (under number 22). Sermon of 435 (under number 23). Sermon of 436 (under number 24). Sermon of 437 (numbered 25). Sermon of 438 (under number 26). Sermon of 439 (under number 27). Sermon of 440 (under no. 28 m). Sermon of 441 (under number 29). Sermon 442 (under number 30). Sermons for different occasions (homiliae diversae). Determination of the time of origin of the named sermons and presentation of their content. Sermons of the pre-Destorian period (412 – 429). Discourse on the Transfiguration of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ (No. 9). “Conversation at the Meeting of Our Lord Jesus Christ” (number 12). "Discourse on the parable of the vineyard" (number 17). Like the Kingdom of Heaven is to the home-eating man, from whom laborers came forth in the morning to hire their vineyards. Sermons of the Nestorian and post-Nestorian period (431 - 444). Sermon preached in Ephesus under number 1. Ωραία πάνυ. “Sermon preached in Ephesus on the day of St. John the Evangelist,” number 2. The custom of conducting research about some literary monument on historical grounds and principles. – The custom, justified by the essence of the matter itself, extends to the area of ​​works of church preaching. No literary work stands in close and inextricable connection with the personality of its creator, and no writer can be divorced from connection with the circumstances, spirit, direction and issues of his society and time. The work is the child of the author, and the author is the son of his time and society. Likewise, the preaching ministry of the shepherd of the Church is a historical phenomenon. The doubtfulness of the latter is visible, first of all, from the fact that the minister of the word of the church himself is a person with a certain disposition, depth and richness of thought and feeling, a certain spiritual and moral organization, formed under the influence of natural talents, education, living conditions and the spirit of the time and environment. From this point of view, therefore, church preaching and eloquence are a human matter. Let us assume that the truths of the Christian faith and morality, which the preacher is obliged to proclaim, have eternal and unchanging significance, as contained in divine Revelation, however, these truths, assimilated by the preacher, are refracted and receive a personal individual coloring depending on the spiritual and moral character of the preacher’s personality. The depth of understanding of the truths of the Christian faith, the height and breadth of the theological worldview, the strength of the religious feeling that animates the church speaker - all this bears the stamp and shades of personality and individuality. Hence, with equally rich talents and thorough education, the speculative element predominates in one, and the practical element in the other; one has the richness and depth of a dogmatic worldview, the other has an amazingly subtle and true analysis of the human heart, life and passions; one denounces, the other edifies; one amazes with the cold calm of his words, precision and indestructible all-weaponry of exegetical and logical arguments, the other with his oratorically elegant, harmonious speech; one acts on the mind and through it sets the will of the listener into corresponding motion, the other takes possession of the heart of the listener, and through the latter controls his will. But the preacher, as we said, is also appointed depending on the circumstances and needs of the time and environment. He must respond to the demands of the religious and moral life of his contemporary society; must become level with the growth of his time and his flock. The Word of God is spirit and life; the sermon of a minister of the Church should not be a clanging cymbal or a ringing brass. It must reach the hearts of the listeners and flock, it must pass into their lives and activities and bear spiritual fruit. And for this, the preacher must be everything to everyone, at least he must take into account the needs and growth of his time and flock. You cannot speak in the language of St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Cyril of Alexandria to an uneducated people with a simple faith or to a savage who has just joined the church. Babies in faith do not need solid spiritual food, but verbal milk. And no matter how remotely the sermon sometimes corresponds to the questions and needs of the time, it still exists and in no case can it be denied. Otherwise, for no other reason would it be possible to satisfactorily explain this or that direction and content of the sermons of a famous pastor, this or that mention by him of various vices of society. Why St. Gregory the Theologian speaks so persistently about God the Word and His relationship to the Father, St. Cyril of Alexandria about the incarnation and face of Jesus Christ, fatalists, fortune-telling astrologers, land and sea robbers, etc., if we do not take into account the needs of the time, theological thought, flock and locality? Therefore, in order to understand the appearance, content, spirit and character of the sermons of one or another pastor, it is necessary to become familiar with the personality of the preacher himself, with his character, as well as with the Factors that served to create the latter in this and not another form, with the spirit, direction and issues of that time, with the local conditions and needs of the flock. The center cannot be considered without connection with its circumference and peripheries. Relating everything said to the sermons of St. Cyril of Alexandria, we must, therefore, in order to better understand the properties and characteristics of his sermons, trace the life of the preacher himself in its main moments and contact with both the general course of life of that time and local influences and conditions - trace from those, mainly, sides that have a direct or indirect influence on the fate of his preaching ministry. In the light of the same influence, of course, in appropriate points and places, the sermons themselves must be examined. This consideration of the sermons of St. Cyril, in connection with his personality and historical and local influences, gives us the opportunity to use the comparative-historical method, i.e., checking historical evidence with instructions contained in sermons and Jesus Christ. From here, starting to study the sermons of St. Cyril of Alexandria, we will first depict the personality of this holy father in the main periods of his life, and then we will talk about his very sermons 1 Personality of St. Cyril of Alexandria 2. Years of education St. Cyril of Alexandria was born approximately in the 80s of the 4th century (370 - 380) 3). Through his mother, he was the nephew of Archbishop Theophilus of Alexandria (Abbr. Ts. Ist. VII, 7). During the initial years of his upbringing and education, very little direct and positive news has been preserved. Church historians Socrates and Evagrius are resolutely silent on this subject 4 . Private and random indications concern Cyril’s adult life, when he chose a desert life and the exploits of monasticism around 395 - 400. Meanwhile, Cyril’s writings, and even his sermons alone, show that he spent his adolescence and youth in the study of secular free and Christian sciences. Archimandrite Porfiry (Popov) in his monograph on Cyril of Alexandria (Appendix to the Works of St. Oo. vol. 13) says that Cyril received his upbringing and education in the liberal sciences under the guidance and supervision of his uncle, Archbishop Theophilus. Admitting, for our part, Theophilus’ observation of Cyril’s upbringing and education, we, however, have reason to think that Cyril’s very education was received from Archbishop Theophilus. Cyril's field of philosophical and other specialized knowledge in the so-called liberal sciences was so vast that it could hardly be taught by one person. Origen and Didyme constitute rare and exceptional phenomena. Moreover, such information, for example, as about Greek mythology and poets, could hardly have been obtained from the bishop. Is it possible, for example, to admit that information about the image of the fornication of the Maenads, with which Cyril compares the vile vice of the eunuchs (h.d. 19, p. 1108), could have been reported by Theophilus? At the same time, Cyril notes: ώς άληθώς χαί άχρίβώς μεμαθήχαμεν (Ibid. p. 1109). It goes without saying that Cyril could not receive thorough and detailed knowledge about this subject either during his hermit’s life (395 - 400), where the subject of his studies were ascetic deeds and the study of the Holy Scriptures and the works of the Fathers of the Church, or during his episcopal service, since the said speech was delivered in the first years of his episcopacy. There is more reason to think that Cyril received both this and similar knowledge, as well as all other knowledge, through studying at the Christian Alexandrian school and through listening to Alexandrian philosophers and rhetoricians, where philosophy (Neoplatonic) was supported at that time by the famous Hypatia, whose lessons, by the way, were taught by Synesius, the Ptolemaic bishop (5th century). Traces of Cyril’s extensive acquaintance with the liberal sciences, as we said, can be found not only in his major theological and polemical works (for example, the Julian Strait), but also in his sermons. From these latter it is clear that the Alexandrian shepherd knew philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, poetry, rhetoric, syllogistics and dialectics of Aristotle and the eloquence of Plato and orators in general. Cyril freely quotes Homer and easily points to mythological tales and, in general, certain opinions of Greek poets. In the 14th Easter Sermon (β, p. 717) he, for example, generally characterizes the hypocrisy of the Greek poets: “I think,” he says, that a crafty person who hides one thing in his mind and says another, as is the case with Greek poets, naturally had and will have a bad end.” But in most cases he refers to the opinions and testimonies of the Greek poets and Homer, mainly as evidence of the so-called ad hominem. Speaking, for example, that the appearance of God in the flesh was necessary for people, since they cannot contemplate the glory of pure Nature in Her immediate form, he points, among other things, to Homer (Il. V, 72): “I know one of the Greek poets, despite the fact that they all revolved in polytheism, (saying): gods who are visible are intolerable” (h. p. 15, δ, p. 744). But denouncing the Greek poets for their hypocritical double-mindedness (“they say one thing in front of the crowd, and think another thing to themselves”), Cyril also finds in them a denunciation of this vice, noticeable in Christianity itself (it was some who, considered Christians, did not part with pagan mythology). Having generally referred to the Greek poets, who called such hypocrites deceivers and impious, he continues (h. p. 9, e, p. 592): “but I remember one of them clearly saying that no less hateful than the gates of hell are those who keep one thing in their minds and spew out another in words in (Iliad. IX, 112 etc.). In other places he refers to some mythological names and to evidence against polytheism among poets: “seduced, he says, by the beautiful plants of the sacred groves on the mountains, (the Jews) offered sacrifices to demons there, calling the nymphs, as it seems to me, in agreement with the Greek poets, “hamadryads” and “oriads” (b. p. 1, ς, p. 420). “Bringing into life, he talks about the Greeks in another place (b. p. 4, δ p. 460), besides the one, truly existing by nature (God), as many gods as everyone wants, they, turning away from our speeches, let them hear what one of their admittedly poets said: “multi-power is not good; there must be one leader, one king" (Il. V, 204)... in all and through all and above all God." Cyril's acquaintance with pagan mythology is evident, among other things, from the rather detailed transmission of the myths about Tantalus, Tityus, Ixion and Sisyphus (h. p. 6, δ, p. 509 - 512). Cyril has excerpts from little-known ancient poets, such as. in the 15th Easter sermon (ϒ, p. 741): “it is not characteristic of God to sin in anything, on the contrary, it is in His power to do everything correctly” (Theoktist in Stobaeus).—Expressing himself somewhat in a figurative Form (h. p. 6, ά. P. 500) 5 Saint Cyril gives grounds to conclude that he is familiar with history in general, which is then confirmed by direct some historical indications given by him in one of his sermons (h. p. 28, δ, p. 949): “When Moses lived in Egypt, he narrates, it was legal among the natives that, due to some imprudence, those shod in the skins of dead animals should not be allowed into the sacred places of idols: this was considered by them nothing more than desecration. One might think that this evidence.” drawn by the author from the history of Egypt. Further, Cyril’s acquaintance with rhetoric, eloquence, dialectics and syllogistics of Aristotle and with Philosophy seems quite undoubted. In Easter sermons and especially the so-called “prologues” and “propheories” to these sermons, the preacher very often apologizes that his word is not delivered according to the rules of eloquence, does not have the Attic charm of the language, careful selection and arrangement of words (h. p. 2, β, p. 429), does not shine with vastness, dignity of speech, external decorations and rhetorical devices (h. p. 16, р. 748, prilog.; сравн. h. р. 19, pag. 280, prilog.; h. р. 22, 857, prilog; h. р. 23, р. 875, профеор.; h. р. 28, р. 941, профеор.; h. р. 29, р. 957, профеор.), that meanwhile it is quite appropriate to preach about such a great event as the Easter of Christ (h. r. 18, r. 800, prof.). Such apologies, characteristic of almost all writers and preachers of the 4th and 5th centuries, necessarily presuppose in the apologizing person knowledge of what or the absence of what he is apologizing for; The medieval aphorism: “nullus timor” or nulla cupido ignoti” can be applied in this case to an apology. Only having a taste for eloquence and possessing knowledge of the techniques of oratory can you measure your strength and skill with them. Nevertheless, according to the testimony of Socrates (C. Ist. book V40; II, ch. 13), Cyril had the pleasure of hearing applause and applause from his listeners. – In one of the Easter sermons (h. p. 12, δ ’ ε ’ Ϛ p. 684 – 692) St. Cyril clearly expounds the philosophical doctrine of essence and substantiality in the intention of eliminating the objection of dialecticians that, on the basis of the difference between the concepts “begotten” and “unborn”, it is necessary to recognize the essences of God the Father and God the Son as different. Moreover, he himself proves the opposite in a purely dialectical and syllogistic way, namely, that the essence of the “begetter” and the “begotten” must necessarily be the same (ibid. p. 689). “I’m surprised,” he says ironically, how this could have eluded the very insightful and wise people that they consider themselves to be” (ibid. p. 688). Not content with this, he continues (ibid. p. 689 – 691): “although from what has been said it is obvious how unreasonably they claim that “ungeneracy” is a designation of essence, let me briefly prove this from numerous philosophers,” and proceed to expound (just like Aristotle) ​​the doctrine of “definitions,” “essences,” “genus,” “differences,” etc., and having explained all these definitions with examples, he applies them to the concepts “begotten” and “unborn.” Cyril speaks here of heretics that they are unfamiliar even with external wisdom (ibid, p. 689). From the 6th Easter sermon we learn that Cyril knew about astronomy, the teachings of the Neoplatonists and Stoics. Mocking the appearance and arrogant posture of astronomers (“pulling out eyebrows over the crown of mere mortals, combing his long beard with his hand,” etc.), the preacher depicts their activities and the conclusions of their science (h. p. 6, δ᾿, p. 505). But his extensive knowledge in astronomy and mathematics 6) St. Knrill shows in his writings relating to Easter and astronomical and mathematical calculations in general what “epist” is. 86, ad sanctum Leonem papam" (pp. 377 - 384), revealing in the author a deep and fundamental knowledge of the laws of currents and phases of the moon, then - "epistola 87, sive prologus s'riptus pro cyclo XCV40; apporum, quem cum anno Christi vulgari 437, Diocletiani 153, Cyrillus inchoavit (r. 383 – 390) and the cycle itself finally determines the time of the celebration of Easter in each Easter sermon. On page 508 (in the 6th Easter sermon) St. Cyril characteristically describes the superstitions and zoolatric religious beliefs of the philosophers of that time, which clearly indicates the decrepit and literally childish Alexandrian Neoplatonism of the 4th and 5th centuries, which by that time had turned into a mixture of all kinds of superstitions, sorcery, magic, etc. 7). Further (pages 509 - 517), he argues against philosophers who teach about the law of necessity, about "fate", "fate" and "birth", which supposedly determine the whole life and all actions of a person. With the examples of Tantalus, Ixion, Tityus and Sisyphus, the gravity of "fate" over which these philosophers recognized, the preacher proves, on the contrary, the law of freedom, since only the latter determines the law of moral imputation, which is again recognized by those philosophers in relation to Tantalus and Co., considering them to have deservedly suffered. It is clear that we are talking about the Stoic worldview and ethics, which were included as components in the philosophy of Neoplatonism. Thus, based on the given passages and indications contained in Cyril’s sermons alone, we can conclude that the saint of Alexandria in his youth thoroughly studied the so-called “external wisdom”, having completed a full course of general education, or liberal sciences, and, moreover, in Alexandria. After his final education under outside influences - the Alexandrian school, philosophers and rhetoricians, and then his uncle Archbishop Theophilus, around 395 Cyril chose desert life in Mount Nigria, in the monastery of the matchmaker Macarius, as much for practicing monastic deeds as for independent study of the Holy Scriptures. Here he spends about 5 years 8). In the exploits of the monastic life of St. Cyril practiced under the guidance of the monk Serapion 9). To study the Holy Scriptures and the works of famous fathers and teachers of the Church, he often spent whole nights reading them, and reached the point that he studied almost all the books of Holy Scripture from memory, familiarized himself with the works of famous fathers and teachers of the Church - Dionysius and Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Amphilochius of Iconia, Ammon of Adrianople, John Chrysostom and others 10. In the sermons of St. Cyril we encounter such an extensive and deep knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, which is found only in very few theologians and teachers. He confirms every thought with the word of God, the exegesis of Scripture in application to dogmatics reaches amazing heights and perfection in Cyril. The Holy Father does not deviate from Scripture for a moment, constantly noting to his listeners that he will (and does) speak from the Divine Scriptures, or that “this and that must be learned from the Holy Scriptures” (H.R. ϒ, R. 433; H.R. 5, R. 472, 485, etc.). In some sermons, he speaks almost entirely with the words of Scripture. Cyril's extensive study of Sacred Pipsanium is confirmed, among other things, by the fact that St. the father freely cites passages from all the books of Holy Scripture, even less commonly used than others 11. With the law and the prophets, with teaching books, and also with the New Testament of St. Cyril is so well and intimately familiar, so freely proves his thoughts in their place, that it is necessary to assume that he knew all of them by heart. The certainty of this assumption, in addition to historical evidence, is confirmed in our opinion by the fact that Cyril in the 1st century often cites texts from these books not literally and word for word, but with omissions or the addition of some words, generally changing the biblical text somewhat; 2, he often attributes this or that passage from a famous book not to its author, but to another person; in 3 he often mixes up the words of different writers. books, having begun to speak in the words of one person, ends with the words of another, similar or very close in meaning and expression to the first. The text cited by Cyril especially diverges from our Slavic translation (according to the text of 70) in places from the prophet Jerphmia. Sometimes it is difficult to find even close correspondence between them. To prove our three stated provisions, we will give several examples. So, first of all, Kirill sometimes cites the text in a slightly altered form. Eg. on the 1st Easter Sunday, sermon. (ϒ, p. 409) words of the ap. James (I, 27): “faith is pure and undefiled”, Cyril reads: νηστία χαθαρά χαί άμίαντος; the words from Wisdom XV, 16, in the 2nd Easter conversation are literally quoted (ζ, p. 444); in the 5th Passover (β᾿, p. 470) instead of σοϕοί (Jer. VIII, 8 - -10) in Cyril - πτωχοί in the 6th sermon (ϒ', p. 505) we read: “... δι ’ ένός “The prophets actually have no such words; there is a similar place in the book of the Wisdom of Solomon (it is very possible that Solomon is called a prophet here), Chapter XV. 10 it reads like this: for ashes is his heart, and the earth is his worst hope; or in the same conversation (ή. p. 520); βλέπετε τους χαχούς έρ ϒ άτας, βλέπετε τήν χατατομήν ... Obviously the place is taken from the epistle of the apostle. Paul to the Philippians (chap. III, 2 - 3 ART.), but the words: βλέπετε τους χαχούς έρ ϒ άτας are superfluous in comparison with the text now read: beware from dogs, beware from being cut, etc. In the same sermon again (θ, p. 524) words of Evang. Matthew: You close the kingdom of heaven before men... Cyril conveys it differently: ήρατε τήν χλείδα τής ϒ νώσεω ϛ... In the 7th Easter sermon (β, p. 548) there is such a place (cited as the words of one of the prophets): A ί άνομίαι ήμών άντέστησαν ήμίν , To ύριε , ποίησον ήμίν ένεχεν τού όνόματός σου, δτι πολλαί αί άμαρτίαι ήμών έναντίον σου δτι σοι ήμάτομεν, ύπομονή I σραήλ, K ϋριε, χαί σώζεις έν χαιρϕ χαχών. This place is most likely from Jeremiah (XIV, 20 - 21), but our Slavic text strongly disagrees with Kirill’s: We know, O Lord, our sins, our iniquities, our father, because we have sinned before You. Stop for the sake of Thy name, do not destroy the throne of Thy glory: remember, do not destroy Thy Covenant with us. On the 8th Easter. prop. (Ϛ, p. 573) there is a rearrangement of words and a contraction of verses 14 and 15. XLV40; Ch. books of the prophet Isa ii. - Likening a zealot of good deeds to a war horse (h. p. 9, a, p. 577), Cyril cites a passage from Job in the following words: πό ῤῥ ωθεν όσϕραίνεται πολέμον, σύν αίματι χαί ϕωνή in the Slavic Bible it is The place (Job XXXIX, 25) reads like this: from afar the army renews itself, galloping and neighing. - on Easter 24. prop. (ϒ.р. 892) we read: ώς ϒ άρ ό πάνσοϕος ϒ ράϕει P αύλος ούδείς λέ ϒ εί άνάθεμα ‘I ησού εί μή ό έν βεελϚεβούλ . These words, of course, constitute a slightly modified expression of an. Paul in the 1st last. to the Corinthians (verse 3), no one spoke to them by the Spirit of God, anathematizes Jesus. – Secondly, the author often attributes the words of Scripture he quotes to a person other than who they actually belong to. For example, at 5 Easter. preaching (έ᾿, p. 485) the words: “These days are coming, says the Lord, and they will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,” - undoubtedly belonging to the prophet Jeremiah (XXXI, 31), he attributes to the prophet Joel; words (h. p. 13, β᾿, p. 697): “Woe to him who multiplies to himself bearing it, how long? and to the aggravating burden” - Cyril attributes the prophet to Jeremiah, while they are literally read in Habakkuk (11, 6), In the 12th Passover (p. 6b4) - words from the book of the Wisdom of Solomon (II, 12) Cyril attributes to Isa. The words: they greatly burden their yoke (h. p. 24, y, p. 892) he refers not to Isaiah (XLV40;II, 6), as it should, but to Jeremiah. 8th verse X ch. books of the prophet Zakharsh (I will proclaim to them and receive and, zanf, I will redeem them and multiply like many) Cyril ascribes meanwhile to St. Isaiah. - In 3, as we said, Kirill often merges into one text words from different places and writers - places that are similar to each other either in internal meaning or in expression. For example, on Easter 2. prop. (Ϛ, p. 444) the parable of the Sower is transmitted according to Matthew (XIII, 3 - 8), but the initial words are given according to Luke. At 13 Easter. prop. (a’ p. 696) the text is composed of the expressions of 3 inspired writers: Isa II (LII, 6 – 7), Nahum (II, 15) and St. Paul (Rom. I, 15). What belongs to one person is divided and attributed to different writers, for example. h. r. 4, β, r. 453. – All the mentioned and similar passages indicate, as it seems to us, among other things, that the preacher, citing them, did not consult the text of the Bible, but reproduced it from memory. Fatherly testimonies of St. Kirill rarely cites in his sermons, but he still cites. For example, on the 2nd Easter. conduct (ϒ', p. 433) says: “removing filth from the body and, as one of the saints put it, not making the tunic soiled by the flesh.” In two places (h. p. 8, Ϛ, p. 572 and h. d. 21, p. 1114) the preacher refers to St. Athanasius the Great and cites excerpts from his writings. Cyril's study of the Holy Scriptures and the works of the former fathers and teachers of the Church was accompanied by deep and serious reflection. Cyril pondered every line of Scripture; He tried to firmly and unshakably establish every dogmatic thought on the indisputable authority of Revelation. How much and deeply Cyril thought about difficult theological issues, comparing his conclusions and decisions with the direct teachings of Revelation and the Fathers of the Church, can be seen from his first preaching works, where those points of Christian dogmatics (i.e., the proper Christological teaching), the time of revelation of which came only later, were touched upon and almost completely resolved. This is, by the way, the 8th Passover. a sermon preached by Cyril in 420, therefore 8 years before the heresy of Nestorius. Meanwhile, this sermon fully and thoroughly reveals the Christological teaching that was subsequently approved at the Ephesian and Chalcedon ecumenical councils. Such was the education of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Extensive in subject matter, deep in its internal properties, it bore the stamp of the Spirit and the direction of theology of the Alexandrian school and church. Capturing not only special subjects of theological knowledge, but also almost all branches of the secular sciences of that time, it was speculative in nature - or speculative theological, akin in its desire for the ideal and mysterious with the philosophy of Plotinus, which met with a very warm welcome in Alexandria. In Cyril's method of explaining the Holy Scriptures, the allegorical method occupies the main place. But these, both the speculative theological direction and the allegorical spirit of exegesis, were strictly restrained in the field of Christian dogmatics by the subordination of reason to faith and tradition, which constituted a distinctive feature of the so-called New Alexandrian theology (from the time of St. Athanasius the Great) in comparison with the Eastern - Antiochian. Cyril’s faith and dogma are traditionally ecclesiastical and paternal. He philosophizes, but subordinating the mind to faith, not allowing himself to transgress the tradition of the faith, fathers and theology of his church - the guardians of Orthodoxy and the Apostolic faith since the time of the Nicene Ecumenical Council (h. p. 8, a’, p. 556 - 557). To preserve the purity and integrity of the Orthodox faith, to philosophize in accordance with the Holy Spirit. Scripture and great teachers, to penetrate into the deep and hidden meaning of Scripture, while restraining the testing power of reason - these are the distinctive features of the theology of St. Kirill. But to fully describe the personality of the preacher we are considering, it is necessary to characterize the soil on which the named seeds of education fell; Then the personality of Kirill and his activities in all spheres of fgo ministry will be completely clear to us. A distinctive natural feature in the character of St. Kirill is served by intense excitability of the spirit, constant energy, and unremitting courage in activity. This was not a calm, although strong and deep character. Kirill is tormented by a thirst for activity, struggle, and achievement. His spirit is a continuously stretched string, ready to emit a sound at the slightest contact with objects - but to emit a correct and faithful sound. It is enough to read a few sermons of St. Kirill, in order to draw a conclusion from one syllable about the character of the Alexandrian preacher. Kirill constantly hurries and excites his listeners to activity, to struggle, to feats, to unflagging courage and perseverance. His favorite virtues are courage and patience: “this is a beautiful and luminous duo of virtues,” as he himself puts it (h. d. 18, A, p. 1100; h. d. 9, r. 1009). At the same time, Cyril rarely even indicates where exactly these virtues should be found; he loves and highly values ​​them in themselves, according to their affinity with the choleric temperament of his spirit. His favorite examples of the pious life of a Christian are always the image of a warrior, always in full armor, never closing his eyes for a minute or indulging in inaction, but always ready for battle with the enemy..., for a stubborn battle, to the point of sweat. Showing oneself the “sweat of virtue" is the highest degree of Christian perfection. A Christian must take the example of an athlete and a wrestler. Not only before the fight and competition does he internally excite himself, exercise and try his strength, but he develops and strengthens himself in his art for many years, throughout his life, continuously, persistently. Without these preliminary feats and exercises, the director of the competition would not have allowed such a wrestler to participate in them at the opening of the spectacle. Likewise, a Christian must continuously maintain within himself the inner heat of excitability and energy, must constantly be active, exercise and strengthen his spiritual and moral strength in exploits of virtue (b. p. 8, a’, p. 556) If characters are most clearly revealed through comparison with others, then Cyril in this respect is in direct opposition to the character of St. Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa. While the latter, and especially St. Gregory the Theologian, all his thoughts are directed towards a quiet, contemplative life, towards solitude, not disturbed by any worries and worries of life, Kirill is a man of struggle and activity. What for the first is contemplation and self-deepening, for Kirill it is open activity, serving as a sign of the inner man. And Cyril chooses a desert life for a while; but then as for St. Grigoriev, she was the goal of their aspirations; for Kirill, she was only a means to educate his will, to strengthen his character. Obviously St. Basil the Great, this man of practical activity, was still such a contrast with St. Gregory the Theologian, as the shepherd of Alexandria we are considering. Another distinctive natural feature of the spirit of St. Kirill is the insight of his thoughts, reflected in his unusually quick ability to distinguish and evaluate objects from their inner side. What another reaches through long considerations and reflections is given to Kirill as if immediately, ready-made; Kirill grasps an object at first sight and determines its dignity and properties. It is not difficult to see after this what kind of personality St. entered into life. Cyril of Alexandria, who combined in his character the main natural traits and the content and spirit of scholarship and theology of the Alexandrian school and church. It is we who see him as a remarkable theologian, a strict and decisive zealot for the right faith and in accordance with tradition, a tireless fighter against all kinds of errors, sensitive to all questions of faith, and yielding to no obstacles or difficulties. Therefore, the motto of his life and work, as it seems to us, could most appropriately be the following words of Cyril himself, spoken by him in the midst of the struggle with the heretic Nestorius: “I will not give, in the words of Scripture, sleep to my eyes and slumber to my eyelids and rest to my churches (χροτάϕοις) until I have accomplished the feat for the salvation of all. Therefore, knowing my determination, take heart,” he wrote to the clergy of Constantinople (epist. 10, p. 68 – 69): “for I decided to put in my last efforts for faith in Christ, to endure all kinds of torment, no matter how severe they were considered, and, finally, to endure death itself with pleasure for this” (compare epist. 28, p. 145). Archbishop's ministry of St. Kirill. Pre-Destorian period (412 – 429). On October 15, 12 412, the Archbishop of the Alfxandrian Church, Theophilus, died. After three days of debate, the nephew of the deceased, Kirill, was elected as his successor and confirmed on the 13th throne as archbishop. The city of Alexandria, the holy throne of which was occupied by St. Cyril, was founded by the conqueror who gave it his name in 311 14 BC. From its founder, a student of Stagirites, Alexandria inherited the spirit of the great Greek philosophers, and under the Ptolemies it became a worldwide not only industrial and commercial center, but also a scientific center. The museum, founded in the new capital of Egypt by the successors of Ptolemy, was such an amazing institution for the organization of scientific affairs for the ancient world, which can hardly find a rival in modern times. Scientists of all kinds of nationalities lived in the museum at the expense of the state, and thousands of students flocked there from all neighboring countries. Naturalists had at their disposal a botanical garden, extensive zoological collections, and an anatomical amphitheater; astronomers had an observatory; mathematicians, writers, grammarians, philologists took advantage of the magnificent library, which in the first centuries of our era contained up to 700 thousand volumes. But Alexandria enjoyed special fame since the time of the Ptolemies in the experimental and mathematical sciences 15. All almost ancient branches of mathematics and astronomy before Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo belonged to Alexandria. Although the museum and its worldwide scientific fame, starting from the 3rd century A.D., under Emperor Caracalla, who destroyed most of his library and deprived his teachers of government support, gradually weakened and faded, nevertheless, a huge library and the spirit of learning and philosophy continued to exist in Alexandria until 641, when Egypt was conquered by the Arabs, the museum was destroyed and the library was burned. – At the time we are considering, Greek philosophy, which moved from Athens to Alexandria, weakened; The Greek genius entered the age of senile impotence. Unable to create anything new, independent and original, Greek thought turned to memory, to the days of its former creative youth, and fell into eclecticism. The ancient philosophical schools, each of which had its own basic principle, its own special stamp and individual character, have now become devalued and merged, first in syncretism, and then in a new generation of the latter - Neoplatonism. This latter, having received its beginning in the philosophy of Plotinus (†270), a student of Ammonius Saccas of Alexandria, - in a philosophy that accommodated and united the emanatic and theosophical systems of the East, and the systems of Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics - starting from the 4th century, it acquires a slightly different character. While Plotinus and Porphyry, who lived before the final victory of Christianity over paganism under Constantine the Great, were determined opponents of superstition, among their followers the search for truth is more and more subordinated to religious interests - theosophical and theurgic (Iamblichus and Proclus). From the sworn enemy of popular beliefs, philosophy, as if in opposition to the all-conquering power of Christianity, becomes the ancilla of polytheism. To restore it at any cost is the hopeless task that philosophy sets itself. Since then, everything in ancient paganism seems good to her: the strangest superstitions, invocations of spirits, sorcery, magic, spells of the gods, dream interpretations and divinations, etc. not only do they apologize and tolerate it, but even she herself recommends and indulges in all this with feverish fervor. The pagan religion, now deprived of the right to exist, and therefore forced to abandon the performance of its rituals, 16 now took refuge under the protection of philosophy and other sciences, which had such a brilliant past in Alexandria. Ancient pagan polytheism, merging with Eastern theosophy and theurgy, as well as with the mysteries of the Egyptians, could thus freely, for some time, exist under a false name - the philosophy of wisdom. – This is precisely the way in which St. depicts the state of pagan polytheism and modern philosophy of wisdom in general. Cyril in his sermons (h. p. 4, ϒ’. 460). Thus, the pagans, possessed by the disease of polytheism and foolish from idolatrous obsessions, pay veneration to wood and stone; even philosophers and astronomers who study the sunflower and determine the essence of the world worship creatures (h. r. 6, ý, r. 504 - δ᾿, r. 508): “They include among the gods even those who do not have a human form, attributing to them the members of a pig and a dog (Ibid.) - they recognize the inevitable fate that weighs on the life and actions of man (Ibid. δ᾿, p. 508 - έ ' p. 513). St. Cyril also points out that feature of his contemporary philosophy, according to which it introduced religious and superstitious teachings into its systems, even borrowed from divine revelation. This is the pantheistic teaching of philosophers depicted by him about “powers,” “thrones,” “dominations,” etc., as divine beings, to whom superstitious divine worship was given (h. p. 12, a’, p. 673 - β᾿, p. 680). Astrologers, soothsayers and sorcerers fooled people with knowledge of the future and strangers affairs, “gathered strings of pitiful old women and whispered their inventions to them, passing them off as the divine will (h. p. 14, ϒ’, pp. 717 - 720): ψυχρών ϒ άρ έχείνοις, continues Kirill χαί The ϒ ραϕήν, ψεύδος ὢ σπερ τι ποιθύνται πωλητήρων (Ibid) - According to Angelo Mayo (h. d. 18, G, p. 1105) in Alexandria there were known dreamers and dream interpreters who prophesied on behalf of Aesculapius of Alexandria. But in places more or less remote from the city, there were also deliberate idol churches and oracles. Thus, 14 stadia from Alexandria, it was in the village of Menufps that there was an idol sanctuary where unclean spirits openly gathered; here were dreamers and dream-interpreters, to whom stubborn pagans turned with questions about the success of their enterprises and to ask for help in illnesses. On behalf of the goddess Menufis (which is how the village itself got its name), soothsayers gave predictions and answers to those who came to the sanctuary of the goddess for advice (h. d. 18, G, p. 1105). By the way, the prophecies and answers of Cassian, the Menufian priest, were known. This was Alexandria from its pagan, traditional side when Cyril assumed the archbishop’s see. Since the conquest of Egypt by Alfxander the Great and the founding of Alexandria, foreigners began to settle in large numbers in Egypt and especially its capital. 17 The largest part of them were Greeks, who settled here with their polytheistic religion, with their customs and with their language. During the time of the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt, who loved Greek literature and Greek arts, the Greeks were respected and caressed so much that entire cities were inhabited by the newly created Greeks alone. Royal decrees and orders of prefects were issued in Greek. They explained themselves in Greek before the judges; Greek was spoken in meetings of learned men and nobles. In general, the Greek language was commonly used in cities and especially in Alexandria, where the Greeks lived. In the sermons of St. Cyril of Alexandria, only the names of the months are given in Egyptian; the very language of the sermons, as well as the listeners, who are constantly in mind, point to the language and nation of the Greeks. Another significant part of the population of Alexandria were Jews, who were first granted Alexandrian citizenship by Alexander the Great and then by Julius Tsefzar. At the beginning of the Christian era, there were about a million of them in Egypt. State laws did not constrain them in any way in everyday life and did not deprive them of the right to purchase estates. All of them were allowed to observe their customs and statutes, so that Egypt was a second fatherland for them. Here, in the Iliopolis region, during the reign of Ptolemy Philomitor, they built a church for themselves on the model of the temple in Jerusalem, and performed divine services in it according to Jewish law and ritual, supporting their priests and Levites with monetary donations and income from the neighboring fields allocated to this church. However, this sanctuary, respected by them, stood only until the accession of Vespasian. St. Cyril of Alexandria in his sermons makes it clear that the Jews had no church, no sacrifices, no priestly and Levitical turns in his time. “Where is your church, he asks the Jews (h. r. 4, ς. r. 465 - 468)? Where are the altars and sacrifices in it? Where do you order to look for the servants of the sanctuary, that is, the numerous orders of priests and Levitical institutions? And the vestments of the high priest and the multi-colored clothing - where and when did they disappear from you again? And why did the bells hanging from the edges of the clothes stop ringing?” (Cf. h. p. 21, y, p. 853). However, the Egyptian Jews, despite the fact that they lived in contentment, often rebelled, especially when the natives or Greeks caused them any offense. Since they did not value the religions of other peoples, as superstitious, and enjoyed special advantages and the patronage of prefects, as was the case in the days of St. Cyril 18, and were rich; then they incurred the hatred of the mob, especially the Alexandrian, who would have exterminated them if they had not found protection from the Roman prefects 19 But the largest, indigenous part of the population were the native Egyptians, who spoke their own national dialect. Their place of residence were villages and hamlets scattered along the fertile Nile plain. Their occupations were cattle breeding, gardening and agriculture. At least when Cyril turns to the life and occupations of the natives, he always depicts these, and not others, works and their occupations ὕ ντες ϒ ηπόνοι (h. р. 8, р. 564, etc.) - these are Cyril’s constant expressions about the Egyptians, used as if in the sense of an epithet for the latter. The other occupations of the Egyptians mentioned by us (as well as agriculture) are evidenced by the pictures of springtime, not devoid of poetry, repeatedly drawn by Cyril (h. p. 9, p. 581; h. p. 29, p. 960; etc.). In them, Cyril depicts multi-colored carpets of greenery and flowers in fields and meadows, herds of sheep and lambs grazing on them; alleys of vineyards with plump and blue grape clusters; fields, shining with golden-yellow ears of wheat and a crowd of reapers going to work, etc. – According to historians, the Egyptians were thin, lean, dark-skinned, homely, fickle in disposition, stubborn, boastful, touchy, proud, lustful, grumpy, frantic. There was no end to their denunciations, especially against the rich. In cases of disagreement about objects of faith and worship, they became so frantic that they started civil strife, maimed people, tore them into pieces and even bit them. These people were very dangerous for the government, exposing society to great dangers even for small things, for example, for not giving up a place in the bathhouse, for a forgotten bow, for blasphemous meat. As talkers and wits, they skillfully invented lampoons against their rulers (prefects) and even mocked the emperors. In general, these were not good people. Eternal slavery made him this way. In such, and perhaps even brighter and darker colors and features, the preacher we are considering depicts farmers - the Egyptians (h. r. 11, Ϛ, r. 656; h. r. 7, β ' r. 544–549; h. r. 8, ϒ ' r. 561–565, etc.). Materially and economically, Alexandria and Egypt occupied a high position. Egypt was considered and served as a grain granary for the Roman Empire 20 . Alexandria, located almost in the center of the then world, at the confluence of the enormous Nile River into the Mediterranean Sea, enjoyed the glory of a rich commercial and industrial point. Hence, in Alfxandria, as in general in rich and luxurious industrial and commercial cities, the uneven distribution of material resources between the citizens of the city was sharply striking. Even Clement of Alexandria (†210), mentor of the Alexandrian school and presbyter, pointed out and drew attention to the concentration of wealth in the hands of merchants and nobles 21 . St. often mentions this. Cyril, while exposing the greed and gluttony of the rich, their inattention and hard-heartedness towards the poor and beggars (h. r. 11, r. 645 - 653; h. r. 27, r. 933 - 936, etc.). – Along with wealth and depending on it, various types of refined luxury and vice were highly developed in Alexandria. According to the testimony of Clement 22, whom we mentioned, rich Alexandrian citizens surrounded themselves with crowds of slaves and mercenaries. Some of them, wrote Clement, prepare food, stews, cookies, and sweets; others take care of and clean clothes, others guard gold like vultures, quarters store silver, clean glasses and prepare dishes for feasts, others look after livestock. In addition to these, we also need crowds of cupbearers and herds of beautiful young men, like cattle from which beauty is milked. Special servants and maids are needed to dress women, some for the face, others for clothing and headbands, and others for combing and dressing the head. Among the servants there are many eunuchs, and all of them are pimps. Further, rich women should have Gauls who would lift them on stretchers and carry them on their shoulders... Women also need people who would tell them all sorts of lies and convey love gossip... A similar way of life for the rich is depicted by Cyril in the above (h. r. 11, h. r. 27) and other sermons. The passion for eunuchs and, in general, the vice of eunuchs during the time of Cyril intensified even more and came to the surface in Alexandrian society, as can be seen from “Cyril’s accusatory speech against the eunuchs” (h. d. 19, p. 1105 - 1109). All the phenomena of the life of Alexandrian society that we examined took place among the flock of the Alexandrian saint. Even pagan misconceptions and superstitions, when confronted with Christian teaching, left harmful traces in Christian society, produced superstitions and generally harmed the purity of faith and life of the followers of Christ in one way or another (h. p. 9, y, p. 585: h. r. 6, y, r. 504 – 505, etc.; h. r. 12, a’, 669 – 673, etc.). Along with these evil products of paganism and polytheism, other kinds of tares often vegetated in the Alexandrian Church - these are heresies and schisms. At the time of Cyril’s accession to the episcopal throne, Novatian heretics were living freely in Alexandria, who had several of their own churches here and freely conducted their worship in them. Followers of other heretical errors also howled in Alexandria, against which the Alexandrian shepherd often directed an accusatory word. Cyril's life and work in the rank of archbishop was long and fruitful, both for the Alexandrian flock and for the church in general. For 32 years this teacher and zealot of faith and piety served in the Alexandrian department, declaring himself to be such from the very first days of his new ministry. The church historian Socrates, having conveyed the news of the election of Cyril to the bishopric, 23 notes that "Cyril entered the bishopric with greater power than Theophilus, that from his time the Alexandrian bishopric stepped beyond the priestly rank and began to autocratically manage affairs. Namely, Cyril immediately locked up the Novatian churches that were in Alexandria and took all their sacred utensils, and their bishop Theopempta was deprived of everything he had.” Without accepting the above conclusion of Socrates from this action of Cyril in relation to the Novatians, as a biased conclusion due to the adherence of Socrates himself to Novatian errors, 24 we see in this first action of St. Kirill is typical, the main features of his character and personality are his ardent, decisive zeal for the purity and glory of the faith. He did this not out of autocracy, not in the sense of an attempt to invade the boundaries of secular power that did not belong to him and thereby expand his already extensive rights (such an act would rather lead to their limitation), but much more truly and more in accordance with reality from purely religious and pious motives - from the desire to clear the field of the Church of Christ from harmful weeds, motives expressed due to the decisive character of Cyril in so cool anyway. Based on the tone and nature of the first actions of a person who entered the field of public service for the first time, one can probably conclude about his subsequent activities. This happened with Kirill. – No less Novatian errors outraged the soul of Cyril and other heretical false teachings that penetrated among his flock. It is quite natural that among the Alexandrian Christians there were quite a few people who had received a secular philosophical education and were keen on worldly learning, as a result of which they brought a preference for reason to faith into Christianity, who tried to test and investigate the truths of faith and Christian dogma according to the principles and requirements of reason, without subordinating this research and the participation of reason to the voice of the church and tradition. There were, of course, people directly infected with the thoughts of the heretics who had already appeared in the Church of Christ, such as the Gnostics, Manichaeans, Paul of Samosata, Arians, Eunomians, Apollinarians. Realizing the need to heal such an evil that overthrew Christianity, and his duty both to expose the very errors and to warn and protect his flock from being carried away by these false teachings, Cyril, even in the first years of his episcopal activity (before Christological disputes), more than once made heretical opinions the subject of denunciations in his sermons. In the “conversation on St. Vaiy feast” (h. 6. 13, pp. 1060 – 1064) St. Cyril sharply denounces the heretics of the Manichaeans, Arius, Marcion, Paul of Samosata and their secret and open followers, defends the divine dignity of Jesus Christ, His incarnation, birth from the Virgin Mary, the trinity of persons in God, etc. In many Easter sermons, starting with the eighth, Cyril in the same way, he strongly denounces the named heretics, especially the Arians and Eunomians (h. r. 8, pp. 565 - 577; h. r. 12, r. 681 - 692; h. r. 15, r. 736 - 741, etc.) Jesus Christ (as in the subsequent Nestorian struggle) and the revelation of the true Orthodox teaching about Him. But the Alexandrian pastor expounds positive dogmatic teaching, mainly Christological, without direct reference to one or another heretical error, in every Easter sermon, from which one cannot help but conclude how great was Cyril’s zeal for the purity of Orthodox dogmatic teaching. But it was even more sad for St. Cyril's presence among his flock of pagans with their superstitious polytheistic cult. As we have already seen, two stadia (2 thousand steps) from Canopus, 12 stadia from Alexandria, in the village of Menoufis there was an idolatry in which unclean spirits apparently gathered 25. Cyril's predecessor Theophilus built a church here in honor of the Evangelists. But demonic power and various superstitions and prophecies continued to exist here and under Cyril. St. Cyril 26 – Ille magnus pietatis amator et fidei violatorum depositor – by the inspiration of God he transfers here, precisely to the church of St. Evangelists, relics of St. martyrs Cyrus and John, who suffered during the reign of Diocletian along with three Canopian maidens, sisters (Theoktista, Theodota and Eudoxia) and their mother Athanasia, and who had rested until that time in the church of St. Apostles in Canopy or Throwing 27. With the transfer of the relics, both the evil spirits of the demons disappeared, and so did the dream interpretations and predictions of the soothsayers. The miracles poured out from the relics of the martyrs attracted the attention of both misguided and reverent admirers of near and distant countries. But Kirill did not limit himself to just transferring the relics. In the vicinity of the village of Menoufis from Alexandria, he often appeared here and delivered teachings 28. During the actual transfer of the remains of St. Three short teachings were delivered to the martyrs 29. At the same time, Cyril spoke with a word of reproof against the superstitions and charlatanism of the Alexandrian pagans, soothsayers and soothsayers, sorcerers, sorcerers - hiding behind, as we have seen, the name of theosophical and superstitious Neoplatonic philosophy. In one of his early conversations (h. p 4, y ', p. 460) St. Cyril sharply denounces the pathetic disease of the polytheism of the Greeks; in the other (h.r. ϒ', δ᾿, e', pp. 504 - 513) ridicules the extreme foolishness of the Fetishists, who have become more reckless than stupid animals - the zoolatrism of philosophers and astronomers, the fatalism of the Stoics and modern Neoplatonists in general. In Cyril’s sermons, they find reproof and refutation and distorted borrowings of the pagans 30 from divine revelation, such as faith. into "powers", "thrones", "dominions", etc., as divine beings (h. r. 12, β᾿, r. 673 - 680). Such worship is nothing other than polytheism and idolatry. In the 14th Easter sermon (u, r. 717 - 720) St. Cyril directs his speech against astrologers, soothsayers and sorcerers who deceived people with knowledge of other people's life circumstances and knowledge of the future - which is characteristic only of God and His true prophets according to divine revelation. But these and similar denunciations of Cyril were actually directed towards the already decrepit and passive, and therefore safe for Christianity, Neoplatonism and pagan wisdom in general. Meanwhile, there were, of course, as the example of Hypatius 31 shows, more serious and prominent representatives of the outdated Alexandrian philosophy. Against them, as well as against heretics, infected with the pretentious human wisdom, and at the same time, for protection from them and for the confirmation of their spiritual children in the truths of faith and piety, St. Cyril writes (before the advent of the Nestorian heresy) more extensive and serious theological works - 17 books on the worship of God in spirit and truth, various exegetical works, a treasure about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, seven conversations about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, a book about the Holy Life-Giving Trinity. But the shepherds of the Alexandrian church were even more outraged by the Jews who appeared in Alexandria. “Being always and everywhere enemies of Christians, as Socrates says, 32 the Jews were especially hated by the Alexandrian mob and Christians in general. According to Socrates' story, they did a lot of evil and dirty tricks both to the Alexandrian Christians in general and to Cyril in particular 33. It is not surprising, therefore, that Cyril, as a strict and unyielding zealot of Christ’s faith and the glory of the church under any obstacles, took the most severe and decisive measures against them, in the first time after taking the throne: he took away the synagogues, deprived them of their property and expelled them from the city 34 . In addition, Cyril opposed the Jews with another true Christian weapon - church preaching. In his first six Easter sermons, falling on the years 414 - 418, that is, in the first years of his ministry, as well as in 8 and 10, relating to the years 420 and 422 - to which approximately the time the fury of the Jews and their intrigues against Christians dates back 35, St. Cyril with particular force and indignation denounces the atrocities and stiff-neckedness of the Jews. Sharp and energetic attacks against the Jews in the sermons already mentioned and more or less strong denunciations in all other Easter sermons and in most of the sermons “for various occasions” (h. p. 1, e’, p. 417 - ς ’, P-424: godlessness, idolatry, wickedness, crime of the law and treacherous stiff-neckedness of the Jews are exposed in relation to the Savior; the state of affairs, the actual impudence and villainy of the Jews. Convicting the Jews of all kinds of iniquities, atrocities and crimes, the preacher finally exclaims (h. p. 10, e, p. 632): “but why should I draw out my speech so much about what is before everyone’s eyes? Who really has not heard about the insolence of the wicked Jews”? (Compare h. r. 4, y, r. 460). If Cyril’s anger against the Jews had legitimate grounds in the state of affairs itself, then in the further consequences of this case, it was in the enmity of the Alexandrian prefect Orestes towards Cyril, which arose as a result of the expulsion of the Jews, and in the murder of Hypatia by the rebels that the justice and innocence of Cyril becomes quite clear. That Cyril himself was not the cause of this enmity of Orestes towards him, or better, that on the part of Cyril himself there was no personal enmity and opposition to Orestes, which Socrates apparently hints at in his expressions about Cyril like the following - “that Cyril wanted to have supervision over the orders of Orestes and others - this is confirmed by the testimony of Socrates himself (who generally does not speak sympathetically of Cyril’s actions) that he offered friendship Orestes and even held the Gospel before him in hopes of speedy reconciliation, “but even such a measure did not soften the prefect” 36. As for the murder of Hypatia, committed, according to Socrates, by some “hot-headed people" out of a desire in her person to destroy the barrier to reconciliation between Cyril and Orestes, and thus happened as if not without the knowledge of Cyril, but according to secular historians (Dreper) even at his will, this is positively not true. The historian Socrates, with all his dislike for Cyril, in the words: “this (the murder) caused quite a bit of grief to both Cyril and the Alexandrian church,” still makes it clear that Cyril was not involved in such an unworthy deed. From these words, on the contrary, one can even conclude that 37 Cyril was in favor of this woman, the philosopher Koppalik, in his essay “On St. Cyril of Alexandria” 38, and Filaret of Chernigov (Hist. study on. oo. ts., § 212) do not find it possible to allow such participation of Cyril in the murder of Hypatia. The Alexandrian shepherd did not leave the moral ailments of his spiritual children without healing. From the essay by Rev. Porphyry, we have already seen what character the Alexandrian flock was in this regard. Socrates characterizes it in a similar way (C. Historical Quarter VII, Chapter 13): “The Alexandrian mob loves indignation more than any other mob and, when it finds a reason, rushes to unbearable atrocities, for without blood it does not calm down from unrest.” But since similar traits were noticed in all other inhabitants of Egypt (according to Porphyry), and since the same traits of their morals and customs - unrest, civil strife, bloodshed and, moreover, due to insignificant reasons - continued during the time of Cyril, as can be seen from his sermons, the saint of Alexandria did not leave this evil without healing. Repeatedly in his “Easter sermons” he mourns the bloody civil strife of the Egyptians (h. r. 7, β᾿, r. 1, – 544 – 549), about robbery and sea robberies and murders (h. r. 8. y, r. 561–565) and contrasts with these strife and rioting, etc. the beginning of love Christian (h. r. 7, a, r. 540 – 544), denounces perjury and deception (h. r. 5, η ’ r. 497), the hypocrisy of dual believers “trading in their love for God (h. r. 9, r. 589 – 604); points to drought and famine as God's wrath and punishment for the internecine life of the Egyptians (h. r. 7, r. 544 - 549', h. r. β, y, r. 909); inspires “to cleanse your heart from wickedness, namely: sorcery, carnality, extortion, slander, perjury, deception, especially from the distortion of accurate and genuine faith; since some of those who have taken the name of Christians are devoted to such an apostate way of thinking,” according to the preacher (h. p. 26, β ', p. 917); denounces the stinginess and hard-heartedness of the Alexandrian rich, their absent-minded and vicious life (h. p. 11, e' p. 645-652); in parallel with this, he depicts the miserable life of the poor and shows the superiority of their life to life rich people (Ibid., also: h. r. 27, β '', ú, r. 932 - 936, and many others) - Against debauchery and its most vile form - skopchestvo, as the products of the luxurious and pampered life of Alexandrian society, Cyril was forced in the very first years of his ministry to make a formidable accusatory word (h. d. 19, pp. 1105 – 1109). But Cyril’s strict zeal for the purity and glory of the faith and the Church of Christ, which inspired him to openly and tirelessly fight against various kinds of errors (heretics, pagans and Jews) and in general the religious and moral shortcomings and vices of his flock, his unshakable devotion to the traditions, theology and views of his church, which has been a faithful guardian since the time of the first Ecumenical Council Orthodoxy in the East - sometimes blinded his eyes somewhat and did not allow him to see things in their true light. We understand the attitude of St. Kirill to memory from in. John Chrysostom Fr. Considering everything that his Alexandrian predecessors, the archbishops, did - the pillars of faith and Orthodoxy (for example, St. Athanasius the Great: h. r. 8, r. 572, Theophilus: h. r. 1, β᾿, r. 405), - legal and completely fair, at least in agreement with the church-canonical rules, and trying to be a worthy successor and continuer of their traditions, Cyril for a long time adhered to the course of action and policy of his predecessor in the department and uncle, Archbishop Theophilus, who, as is known (epist. 33, p. 159), and deposed St. John Chrysostom in 403. Therefore St. Until 419, Cyril did not agree to include the name of this great saint in his church diptychs, which the Roman and Eastern representatives of the churches did. Only at the insistence and admonition of Isidore Pelusiot did he agree to this, and therefore only then was Pope Zosima accepted into communion with the Roman Church, precisely in 419 39, while earlier he had been excommunicated 40 Period of the Nestorian struggle Church and theological activities of St. Cyril from the time of Christological disputes to reconciliation with the “eastern”, and the remaining years of Cyril’s life. Since 429 the activities of St. Cyril of Alexandria stands outside the boundaries of the Alexandrian patriarchate: it is aimed at protecting and protecting the teachings of the Ecumenical Church from the newly emerged false teachings of Nestorius. “In the field of the Church of God, among the wheat, the bitter and harmful tares of the devil appeared - Nestorius” (h. d. 16, p. 1096). Having entered the Archdiocese of Constantinople on April 10, 428 from the presbyters of the Antiochian clergy, Nestorius in the same year revealed his heretical way of thinking regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary and the face of Jesus Christ. Christ, according to the teachings of Nestorius (ep. 2, p. 41), was not God, but only an organ or instrument of the Divine and a God-bearing man (όρ ϒ ανον δέ μάλλον χαί έρ ϒ αλείον θεοτητος, άνθρωπος θεοϕόρος); in a man born of a woman, only dwelt (χατϕϕχηχεν έν άνθρώπϕ...) the Word, which is from God the Father (Er. 1, p. 24). Divinity and humanity were in Christ only in contact, in the union of one person (έις ένός προσώπου ουναέιαν ... ep. 5, pp. 52– - 53), united only by union (ουναέια) of dignity, importance or power, and not a union of natural unity (ep. 17, p. 120, T). The divinity was united with humanity in Christ only as a church (ep. 5, p. 53) 41, the body was only a church of the deity of the Son, and a church united by some higher and divine contact (ep. 5, 56). Hence, neither human properties can be transferred to the deity in Christ, nor divine properties to humanity (ep. 5, p. 53; p. 56). “For the sake of this contact (closeness - οίχειότητος;), Nestorius teaches (ibid.), to preach communication, that is, to attribute to the deity of the Word the properties of the flesh united (with Him), namely birth, suffering, dying - this, my brother (appeal to Cyril), is truly the delusion of the pagans, or an evil illness Apollinaris, Arius and other heretics, and even worse. It is impossible to attribute to the Word of God nourishment with milk, gradual growth," etc. The writers of the sacred books assimilate birth and suffering not to the deity, but to the humanity of Christ, says Nestorius in the same letter (ep. 5, p. 53); "and therefore, after careful research, the Holy Virgin should be called the Christ Mother, and not the Mother of God" (the words expressed are confirmed by numerous places of Scripture, of course not correctly interpreted). Thus, Nestorius recognized two sons or two Christs as separate in Christ (ep. 4, p. 48). This new heretical teaching began to spread quickly, and in 429 it reached the monasteries of Egypt, and through the monks it became known to the archbishop of Alexandria. The zealot of the right faith was not slow to calm the monks and set before them the true church teaching on this issue. In his Easter sermon in 429 (b. 17), he reveals in detail the Orthodox teaching on this subject, and after that he writes a special letter to the Egyptian monks, in which he devotes his main attention to the refutation of the new false teaching, although without mentioning the name of Nestorius, and the disclosure of the corresponding Orthodox teaching. The revealed false teaching did not catch St. Kirill unprepared for his denunciation. As we have already mentioned, back in 420, almost 9 years before the appearance of the heresy of Nestorius, as if foreseeing, he outlined and refuted it in its main, or its main provisions. And now, with his characteristic thoughtfulness and strictly adhering to the universal church teaching and tradition, he step by step refutes both the main provisions of Nestorian false teaching and the conclusions that follow from it. “I am surprised, he wrote to the Egyptian monks (ep. I, p. 13, etc.), how some doubt whether or not the Holy Virgin should be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, then how can she who gave birth to St. Isn't the Virgin the Mother of God? This faith was passed on to us by the divine disciples; This is how we were taught to philosophize by the holy fathers.” Having cited the testimony of St. Athanasius the Great, where the latter calls St. Virgin Mary, St. Cyril in the words of the Nicene symbol and in places the sacred. Scripture proves (p. 16) that God the Word became incarnate, that He remains God both in the incarnation and after the incarnation (p. 17), that if we call St. The Virgin of Christ, then, since in scripture all anointed saints are called Christ. By the Spirit, and we all have, according to the word of the Evangelist John (1 John 2:20), anointing from the Holy Spirit, there will be no incongruity if someone decides to call the mother of everyone anointed the Mother of Christ (p. 20 - 21). “For although we are called gods by grace, yet not in the same sense as God the Son, who is in truth and by nature God, although he became flesh.” If the Word, Cyril argues, dwelt in man, as in a church, without a hypostatic union of nature, then the humility that the ap. Paul to Jesus Christ in the words: I have lost my mind, I have taken on the form of a servant, etc. - it would have been only imaginary, and not real, that the pagans could rightly blame Christians for worshiping a common man (pp. 24 - 25). Further, Cyril proves from different sides the divine dignity of Jesus Christ, His sonship with God (p. 28), calls for the worship of the one Jesus Christ and Lord, confessing in one person His union of both God the Word and the perfect man from St. Virgos (ibid..). “At least,” says Kirill on Easter 17. prop. (p. 773 - 5), and the difference was seen in the natures that entered (in Him, that is, in Christ) into unity, yet He must be accepted and considered as one Son...” Ineffable, so that no one can understand or express, divinity and humanity were united into something that is already thought of after this as one, so that in Him both man like us and God were thought, superior to us, that is, the only begotten and the firstborn.” “For in this way, and not in any other way, what is born can be thought of by God by nature, and the Virgin who gave birth can be considered the mother not simply of one flesh and blood, like all our mothers, but more correctly - the mother of the Lord and God, clothed in our likeness" (compare ibid. p. 777). As for the monks and flock, to whom Cyril’s letter and sermon were addressed, then, of course, they (the sermon and the letter) produced the expected action, that is, they calmed the minds and confirmed those who doubted the right teaching. But in Constantinople, where the lists of Cyril’s messages and sermons soon reached, they had a completely opposite effect. Nestorius, having received them, was offended, considered himself offended, and attributed the whole matter to Cyril’s personal dislike and his rebellious spirit. The two letters that the archbishops of Alexandria and Constantinople exchanged not only did not reconcile the opponents and the NF stopped the heretical teaching of Nestorius, on the contrary, they called the latter to a more dangerous and stubborn defense of his false teaching, and Cyril to an open and decisive struggle for the true Orthodox and church teaching about the Face of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Without having to follow all the vicissitudes of the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius, we will pay attention only to the main circumstances of this struggle that concern our subject. – Having acted as a bold defender of Orthodox Christological teaching, Cyril, however, during the time of the 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, occupied a very unfavorable and critical position in the opinion and attitude of the imperial court and the bishops of the Antiochian (Eastern) Patriarchate. Nestorius managed to convey his hostile attitude towards his accuser, the Alexandrian shepherd, to Emperor Theodosius (h. Div., 4, p. 993). Acting by not entirely honest means, Nestorius exposed Cyril to the emperor as a despot, a disturber of the church peace, like his uncle Theophilus, a renewer of Arianism and Apollinarianism, and even introduced to the emperor several Egyptian rogues and scoundrels, allegedly unfairly offended by the Patriarch of Alexandria. The Emperor believed this and wanted to summon Cyril to a civil or ecclesiastical trial in Constantinople... But soon the emperor’s unfavorable opinion of Cyril turned into complete hatred of him. Cyril, by the way, in order to deprive Nestorius of his main strength, namely the strength at the court where he sowed his heretical weeds, sent (430) three books about the faith to the emperor and his sisters: one to himself, another to Augustus Pulcheria, the third to Arcadia and Marina. Since the edition of these books was different, and the book addressed to Pulcheria was deeper in its content and was furnished with more argumentation from divine and paternal creations than the book assigned to Theodosius, the emperor became suspicious of Cyril’s unseemly goal - to create confusion and discord in the family of the sovereign. And for a long time the emperor’s low opinion of Cyril, as a daring and restless person, could not dissipate, and Theodosius’s personal feeling of hostility towards Cyril did not stop at all. It is not difficult to explain the hostile attitude of the “Easterns” towards Cyril in connection with the sympathy and patronage of Nestorius. Nestorius, as a Syrian native and a student of the Antiochian school, and as a presbyter and preacher of the Antiochian clergy, was, by birth, and by education, and by spiritual sonship, native to the Antiochian church. Meanwhile, Cyril and in his spirit education, both by birth and by hierarchical position, was a stranger to the Antiochians, or eastern ones. It is known with what contemptuous name they honored the Alexandrian archbishop. The word “Egyptian” was enough to indicate all their contempt for the Alexandrian hierarch-high priest. In their refutations of Cyril’s anathematisms, they call the latter only by the word “he.” The Easterners could not sincerely, in their souls, join the teachings of Cyril, defended and defended by him in the dispute with Nestorius. Here, in Antioch, the spirit, direction, techniques and method of studying Scripture and theological sciences in general were special, to some extent opposite to those of Alexandria. A free, rational 42 attitude towards the objects and truths of faith, a literal understanding and interpretation of the text 43, a critical attitude towards the traditional faith of the church 44 - all this ran counter to the views of Cyril, a strict and zealous adherent of the New Alexandrian trend 45. Therefore, it is not surprising that in Cyril’s numerous refutations of the false teachings of Nestorius (appearing in the form of his letters to various individuals, churches and conciliar definitions - in the continuation of 429 - 30) and especially in his so-called anathematisms (epist. 17, pp. 105 - 121), the Antiochians saw not only an inaccurate teaching of faith, but even a direct heretical delusions. They were greatly confused by such expressions of Cyril as “the own flesh of the Word”, “natural unity” (ib. p. 120, in anathematism 2 and 3) or in the 17th Easter sermon: “Divinity and humanity were united (i.e. in Christ) into what is already thought of as one after this.” Being attached more to the words, and not to the essence of thought, they saw in these and similar expressions a renewal of the heresy of Apolinarius 46 and even Arius (ep. 5, p. 56), and presented their refutations to Cyril’s anathematisms due to such an attitude of the Eastern bishops towards Cyril, the latter had to endure a lot of grief and insults in the further course of the matter, before emerging victorious from the struggle. Cyril, supported by Pope Celestine and authorized to act on his behalf, began decisive action against Nestorius. Cyril sent to the latter the definitions of the Roman and Egyptian councils, by virtue of which Nestorius had to renounce his falsehood; otherwise he was threatened with excommunication from church communion and deposition. As one might expect, Nestorius was far from repenting of his delusion; on the contrary, he himself accused Cyril of the heresy of Arius and Apollinaris both before Celestine and before the emperor, and, relying on his influence at court and the power of his dialectics and eloquence in competitions, he asked the emperor to convene a council to try the culprit of all church turmoil - Cyril. The clergy and monks of Constantinople asked the imprator about the same thing - and the emperor’s consent to this actually followed. – A district imperial message was sent to all the metropolitans of the empire, inviting them to appear at the council on the day of Pentecost in 431, that is, on June 7 (since Easter in 431 was on April 23, 19). In addition, a special letter was sent to Cyril from the emperor, full of the most harsh and cruel reproaches to him for allegedly causing discord and unrest in the Church of Christ, for espionage at court, for despotism and abuse of his rights and power - a letter that did not promise Cyril anything encouraging and called him to the council as a guilty person subject to trial. The council was appointed in Ephesus. The eastern bishops, led by John of Antioch, did not appear at the council at the appointed time. Those who arrived were grouped in two circles - around Nestorius and the majority, about 200 (198) people, around the Alexandrian archpastor. The first days after arriving in Ephesus were devoted by both Nestorius and Cyril to preparing for the upcoming council, that is, to the best processing and argumentation of the doctrine they defended. Taking away seductive and heretical passages from the books of Nestorius, and refuting them with the evidence of Scripture and St. fathers, Cyril did not leave at the same time any other way to reveal and confirm (his) Orthodox teaching about the Person of Jesus Christ and St. Virgin Mary - namely the church sermon. The city of Ephesus considered the Mother of God and the Apostle John the Theologian as its patrons. There were two churches here, one in honor of the Mother of God Mary, called “Great, or Greater Mary,” and the other - St. John the Theologian, which bore the same name (“John the Theologian”). Cyril, as a defender of the title of Mary the Virgin “Theotokos" of course should have and indeed was received very cordially and triumphantly both by the residents and authorities of the city, and by the bishop of Ephesus, Metropolitan Memnon. The latter placed at the disposal of Cyril and the bishops of like minds with him all the churches of the city of Ephesus and the right to freely preach the word of God in them 47. St. Cyril did not fail to take advantage of this excellent opportunity for the dissemination and protection of the Orthodox teachings he defends and to establish himself before the inhabitants from an advantageous and good side. For this purpose, he soon pronounces a “word of praise to the Mother of God” in the presence of the assembled bishops and people - a word where he expresses joy about the safe arrival of the bishops safe and sound, thanks to the patronage and invisible help of the protector of Ephesus - St. the Virgin Mary, as well as the Apostle John the Theologian, and proceeds to the panegyric glorification of the Mother of God and the denunciation of the “evil rooster” Nestorius, etc. The beginning of the Ephesian actions, therefore, was opened by Cyril in the most successful and skillful way. But using the church sermon 48 to clarify Orthodox teaching and gain on the side of as many allies and warriors as possible, as well as to refute Nestorius in advance and deprive him of any sympathy from the council and the inhabitants of Ephesus, Cyril kept a vigilant eye on Nestorius, who by this time began to openly declare such blasphemies that made him more than a heretic. The words he said to Akakios of Melitina 49 and Theodotus of Ancyra clearly showed that Nestorius had already become an apostate from Christianity. Such unbearable speeches and mockery of Nestorius forced Cyril, as an ardent zealot of the apostolic and paternal faith, as well as other right-thinking bishops, to hurry up with the opening of the council, without waiting for the arrival of the “eastern” 50. June 22 (431) in the church of St. Mother of God Mary, a council of Orthodox fathers took place, which was later recognized and canonized by the third ecumenical council. Nestorius, whose false teaching was mainly subject to investigation by the council, did not appear at the meeting of the fathers, despite being invited three times. Then the fathers of the council, under the chairmanship of the Alexandrian archbishop, began to consider his teachings according to written documents and the testimony of witnesses - Akakios of Melitino and Theodotus of Ancyra. By general unanimous judgment, the opinions of Nestorius were recognized as heretical and anathematized, while Nestorius himself was deprived of the episcopal rank and excommunicated from church communion. This verdict of the council was announced both to the inhabitants of Ephesus and was sent to the clergy of the church of Constantinople. The following days (23–26) were devoted by the bishops of the cathedral “to fiery sermons, in which they vied with each other to torment Nestorius,” as Thierry puts it. On June 27, the eastern bishops arrived and on the same day they formed their own council, at which it was decided to depose Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus for their lawless actions in Ephesus and for the heretical wisdom revealed in his anathemas, to deprive them of their episcopacy and remove them from all sacred rites. - - Both from the legitimate Orthodox council held on June 22, and from the authorized government official, Committee of Candidian, and finally from the private council of John of Antioch (June 27) reports and resolutions were sent to the emperor. The emperor was at a loss, especially in view of the most unfavorable review of the council on June 22 by the committee of Candidian. After a little time 51, authorized representatives of the Roman throne arrived in Ephesus; therefore, on July 10, the second meeting of the Council of Ephesus took place, at which the papal legates, after reading all the documents of the first meeting (July 22), approved the resolutions of the Council of Ephesus and on July 11 approved them with their signatures. Around this time, seven bishops who had hitherto sided with Nestorius, convinced of the correctness and legality of the actions of the Orthodox council, joined the defenders of Orthodox teaching 52 . In view of these joyful events, St. Cyril spoke two ecclesiastical words, one regarding the deposition of Nestorius, the other regarding the accession of 7 bishops to his council. With the arrival of the papal ambassadors, at the 4th and 5th sessions of the Orthodox Council of Ephesus (July 16 and 17), Cyril and Memnon, as unfairly accused by John of Antioch and his council (June 27), and even deposed and excommunicated from church communion, presented their complaints against John and his accomplices for trial and discussion at the council. After the official three-time invitation of John of Antioch to appear for explanation and justification at the council and his refusal to fulfill this invitation and demand, he and the Easterners in general, after hearing and considering the case, were (July 17) excommunicated from church communion, and the verdict about Cyril and Memnon was recognized as having no force or significance. Regarding this circumstance, Cyril makes a church speech against John, who has decisively separated himself from the council and the right faith. Complaining about John for joining the enemies of Christ, Cyril, at the same time, seems to have a presentiment of an unfavorable outcome for himself and the Orthodox Council in general, and even hints at the possibility of suffering for himself for a just and holy cause. That's really what it was all about. The emperor, not trusting the correctness of the actions of the Council of Ephesus and in order to stop the divisions of bishops that had arisen, sends a plenipotentiary ambassador, Comite John, to Ephesus to pacify the warring factions. Comite John arrived in Ephesus on August 2 or 3, and on the next day, i.e. August 4, he took into custody not only Nestorius, as the culprit of church unrest and divisions, but also Cyril and Memnon, as the main leaders of the Orthodox party. Kirill was thrown into a public prison. The arrival of the comite and his action with Cyril and Memnon were not a surprise to the latter and, in general, to the Orthodox fathers of the council. Akaki Melitinsky and St. Cyril, even before the arrival of Comite John, delivers teachings about courage and patience in serving the Lord, about the height of these virtues and the duty of every true shepherd to demonstrate these feats, in view of the great reward from God promised to the confessors of the divine dignity of Jesus Christ. Only this consolation apparently remained now for the preacher. For three months, full of uncertainty about the fate awaiting him, the Alexandrian shepherd had to languish in prison. Finally, only on October 30, 432 (September), Cyril was able to return to Alexandria in the joyful consolation that his just cause was not lost. The Easterners, after taking Cyril into custody, initially had significant success in their intentions and actions. However, the emperor, under the influence of the intercessory letter of the fathers of the council for St. Cyril and Memnon, the requests of the clergy of Constantinople, conversations with Abba Dalmatus and the suggestions of his sister Pulcheria, finally, after various hesitations, calling deputies to Chalcedon, their inquiries, etc., he approved the faith and decisions of the Council of Ephesus, and the council itself was recognized and approved by the third Ecumenical. Thus, Cyril fully justified his words spoken at the beginning of the struggle with Nestorius (Er. X, pp. 68 - 69): “I will not give, as the scripture says, sleep to my eyes and slumber to my eyelids and rest to my secrets, until I accomplish the feat for the salvation of all." The whole burden of the struggle against the Nestorian teaching was borne by Cyril on his own shoulders. But the mutual disagreements between the Syrian and Alexandrian bishops were not over yet. John of Antioch did not want to submit to either the decrees of the Council of Ephesus or the demands of the emperor, and condemned the consecration of a new archbishop (St. Maximian) to replace Nestorius. At two councils - in Tarsus and Antioch, he again pronounced the sentence of deposition on St. Cyril and the bishops who ordained Maximian, and in a letter to the emperor asked for a ban on preaching the teachings of Cyril. Therefore, at the suggestion of the emperor, the Council of Constantinople (432) discussed means to end doubts. The sovereign's plenipotentiary ambassador, Tribune Aristolaus, went to Antioch with letters from Emperor Theodosius to the Archbishops of Antioch and Alexandria, whereby the former was impressively commanded to put aside personal enmity with Cyril and enter into church peace with him, recognizing the condemnation of Nestorius as correct and accepting the definitions of the Council of Ephesus. John of Antioch, in consultation with other bishops at the councils of Antioch and Beria, instructed the Beria bishop Acacius to set, in a letter to Cyril, the condition for reconciliation - his acceptance of the Nicene symbol and the renunciation of his writings against Nestorius. Cyril, as one would expect, decisively rejected such a condition, and in a letter to Acacius (epist. 33, pp. 157 - 162), anathematizing the errors of Arius and Apollinaris (since he was accused of them), demanded, for his part, from the East that they recognize the condemnation of Nestorius and his opinions. Recognizing Cyril's Confession of Faith as Orthodox. John and Akaki sent Bishop Paul of Emes to Alexandria for personal negotiations with Cyril about reconciliation. But John’s letter, sent to Cyril, was filled with various reproaches and complaints for the past (ep. 36, pp. 165 - 168). Despite this, however, Cyril - before this he suffered from a serious illness - accepted Bishop Paul into church communion and agreed to enter into peace with the Eastern, under the condition that he, in writing, on behalf of the Eastern, condemned Nestorius and his disciples and recognized the legitimacy of the ordination of Maximian. Paul accepted these conditions without any contradiction and, with the consent of the Archbishop of Alexandria, preached two sermons (one on the day of the Nativity of Christ, the other on January 1, 433), in which he rejected the errors of Nestorius. After the second sermon, Cyril himself came out to the cathedral, confirming and approving what Paul of Emesa had said. Fearing any misunderstandings, Cyril sent two clerics with Paul to Antioch, who were supposed to hand over a sociable letter to John, but only if he, like Paul, recognized Nestorius in writing as a heretic, and Maximian as a legally ordained bishop. John of Antioch indeed soon sent a confession of faith, in agreement with the demands of Cyril (ep. 38, pp. 169 - 173). In response to this confession, the latter writes to John a letter breathing with joy and gratitude (Er. 39, pp. 173 - 181): “Let the heavens rejoice and the earth rejoice! the mediastinum of the fence is destroyed, sadness is destroyed...; The common Savior of us all, Christ, gave peace to his churches," exclaimed the Alexandrian saint. St. Cyril shared this joy with his flock in his church sermon. The final reconciliation with the East, which brought such joy to St. Cyril, was not approved by all, however, the Orthodox. In Cyril's agreement with the Antiochians, some suspected this saint's betrayal of his to the former Orthodox teaching. To reassure the confused, Cyril in letters to these persons - Acacius of Melite (ep. 40, r. 181 - 201), Rufus of Thessaloniki (ep. 42 and 43, r. 221 - 4), Eulogius the presbyter (ep. 44, r. 224 - 8), Successus the bishop (ep. 45 and 46, r. 228 - 45), Donatus of Nikopol (ep. 48, r. 249 - 53), Valerian of Iconium (ep. 50, r. 256), Eusebius the Presbyter (er. 54, p, 288 – 9), etc., consistently reveals the history of reconciliation with the former adherents of Nestorius and proves that John’s confession of faith is completely alien to the Nestorian heresy, that the confession of two natures in Jesus Christ is not the same thing, that the confession of two persons (in a letter to Acacius), and that the expression found in the fathers; “one nature of the Word incarnate” (to Success, pp. 241 - 44) does not contain the idea that Jesus Christ has one nature, but that Jesus Christ, although he consists of two natures, is the one Son of God, incarnate and made man, just as man, although he consists of body and soul - two different natures, but from this union of them one is formed man and is called one. - At the same time, St. Cyril took an active part in exhorting and converting to the true path those who had hypocritically reconciled with the Orthodox, remaining Nestorians at heart. His letters on this occasion were sent to Bishop Moses and the abbots of the Syrian monasteries - Maximus, John and Thalassia. Further, since many of the Nestorians began to refer in defense of their opinions to the writings of Theodore of Mopsuet and Diodorus of Tarsus, which contained teachings favorable to them, the saint of Alexandria, fearing new disputes and divisions in the church, together with St. Proclus of Constantinople and John of Antioch took measures to stop the temptation that arose. Corresponding about this matter with John of Antioch, St. Proclus of Constantinople and others, St. Cyril wrote at the same time a refutation of the wicked opinions of Theodore of Mopsuet and Diodorus of Tarsus. Regarding the Nestorian disputes, Cyril wrote an explanation of the Nicene symbol. About the remaining years of the life and activity of St. Cyril, very little information has been preserved. It is only known that he admonished those who were in error, wrote an essay against Julian the apostate, and interceded before Domnus of Antioch on behalf of two deposed bishops. The death of the saint followed in 444 on June 9 53 or 27 54. This is the story of St. Cyril of Alexandria in his life and work. A zealous and tireless guardian of the purity of faith and teaching of the universal church, Cyril gained his special glory and high respect of the church in the fight against the heretic Nestorius and the latter’s followers. It is impossible to point out a single reason given by the Nestorians in their defense that would not be clearly and firmly refuted in his writings. Just as thoroughly and decisively, he exposed the injustice of modern theologians who were hostile to him, accusing him in various respects and, among other things, of the heresy of Arius and Apolinarius. In the fight against these errors, the main merit of St. Cyril consists in revealing and clarifying the dogma of the unity of person in Jesus Christ with the preservation of two natures and other Christological issues closely related to this. Therefore, it is not surprising that the ancient church writers close to Cyril 55 and later historians and theologians 56, and finally the church itself in the person of the councils 57, place this saint among the great fathers and teachers of the church. This may explain that, together with the memory of St. Athanasius the Great, the church decided to celebrate the memory of the great Cyril on January 18. Sermons of Saint Cyril #General view of the preaching activity of St. Kirill. Bibliographical and historical information about his sermons. The Savior, sending His disciples to preach, commanded them to teach people the truths of the Christian faith (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15). Through the apostles, through the succession of the priesthood, the responsibility to teach people the Christian faith and piety passed to the pastors of the church. And indeed, the latter looked at church preaching as a direct duty of the priesthood, as the work of the Lord, which the shepherd of the church must strictly fulfill. St. Cyril of Alexandria, whose sermons we are considering, assigns precisely this meaning to the preaching word. To preach for him means to evangelize, to do the work of the Lord, to perform prophetic ministry. "Those who are obliged to proclaim this," he says, pointing to the task of preaching (h. p. 1, β᾿, pp. 404 - 405), face no small danger; and indeed: the punishments for such negligence are not light. Cursed, it is said, is everyone who does the work of the Lord with negligence." The height and importance of this preaching ministry frightens and awes the young preacher. “And this is not difficult to imagine,” he says (ibid.), remembering blessed Jonah, the sea that was agitated because of him, and that terrible whale that rushed at him. And each of the saints trembled at the greatness of divine service. Here is Moses..., referring to tongue-tiedness..., here is blessed Jeremiah, sent to preach, exclaiming: “Oh, Master Lord, behold, I do not know how to speak, as I am a child.” And Cyril himself recognizes himself as unworthy for such a great task as preaching: ... έπί το χηρύττειν χάμέ τον τα πεινόν τού τής ίερωσύνης χαλούντος σχήματος (ibid.) - Nevertheless, preaching for Cyril is his direct duty, which he must fulfill, despite his timidity and unworthiness. “When the lot of the priesthood, he says (prev. cit. - ibid.), calls me unworthy to preach, then, fearing what is written - do not keep silent - I had to write. this“... “Only heeding Paul, who writes: “Woe is me if I do not preach the good news,” I set out to preach with fear and without (without the strength of) sufficient strength (ibid.).” The shepherd of the church cannot evade preaching, because he is entrusted with the management of the house: “if I do this,” that is, I preach, says Cyril (h. p. 2, β ’ p. 429), according to my zeal, then I receive a reward; and if out of necessity (coercion), then I (after all) have been entrusted with the management of the house." This living consciousness of the author of the preaching duty lived in him until the end of his life: “For us, he said in 16 (h. r. 16, prol.ар. 749), and 30 (h. r. 30, ар. 969) Easter sermons, “those endowed with the dignity of priesthood, it is necessary to use solemn and loud preaching.” “Our duty,” he explained (h. r. 7, β᾿, r. 544). We, being spiritual fathers, did not leave (you, that is, the flock) without instructions, but, like children, led us to a life that was beneficial and in accordance with the law” (compare h. p. 18, prof. p. 801). And indeed, St. Kirill was a very zealous and zealous preacher of the word of God. In his sermons, at every step we encounter such expressions as: “again”, “with an ordinary word” and so on. “I speak before you" (h. r. 18, r. 801; ... r. 25, a. r. 901, etc.). “It is very pleasant for me, brethren,” he says (h. r. 21, r. 849), “when announcing to you at this moment about our holy pan-festival, to appear to you with the usual word. In this case, I will satisfy my own diligence, and I will not leave you with a loss in something useful.” “Thinking about this and acting for your benefit, the author addresses his flock in another conversation (h. d, 18, β ', p. 1101), “we again found it necessary to address you with a word.” In the same sermon, Cyril directly speaks to his listeners about frequent conversations with them: “we were not lazy in the sermon required by custom” (ibid.). The historians and church writers closest to Cyril’s time also testify to Cyril’s preaching fertility. Socrates the scholastic (Church. History book 7, chapter 13) notes on one occasion: “Right there (in the Alexandrian theater) there were adherents of Bishop Cyril who wanted to know about the orders of the prefect, and among them was one man named Hierax, who was a teacher of children’s sciences and an ardent listener of Bishop Cyril, who tried in every possible way to excite applause at his teachings." This man was certainly not a silent shepherd's ardent listener... But another church writer, Gennady of Massilia 58, directly says that "Cyril wrote a lot of sermons, which the Greek bishops memorized for delivery (to the people), obviously in his, Gennady's, time. Time and fate were not so kind to Cyril’s sermons, preserving only a small part of them. However, one must think that many and perhaps most of the preaching works of the Alexandrian saint have not yet been published and are stored in manuscripts in the eastern libraries of monasteries and churches. In addition, 44 conversations of the saint in question are known. father translated into Arabic. – There were several editions of the surviving sermons in Greek and Latin, in parts and in collections. Thus, Bucherius published Easter sermons in one Latin language (Doctrina temporum, p. 481491 Antverpiae 1634). In 1638, Easter sermons (in Greek and Latin) found a place in the publication of Aubert. Excerpts of two words spoken during the Council of Ephesus were published by Binius: T. 1. r. 381, 483. Three brief teachings on the transfer of the remains of St. of the martyrs Cyrus and John, a cardin was published. Angelo Mayom – in Spic. Rom. T. IV. 248 – 63, 1838; the conversation about the vineyard was published by him in volume 5. Spic. r. 119 – 122; there are passages in Labbei (vol. III, concillia). But a more complete collection of the sermons of St. Cyril in Greek and Latin is found in the 1864 edition of Migpe Curs. compl. Patpologiae Graesae. tom. 77. In this edition, in addition to previously published and known (by Bucherius, Avbert) - 29 Easter sermons, 7 preached in Ephesus, and 6 sermons for various occasions (on the Transfiguration, on the Last Supper, praise of the Mother of God, on the Presentation of the Lord, on the Holy Feast of Vay, on the exodus of the soul), - in addition to these, the edition includes: from Easter sermons: an ancient translation of the 17th Easter sermons delivered by Arnobius the younger of Spic. Rom. tom. V; from sermons on various occasions: an excerpt from a conversation given in Ephesus (under No. 8), extomo III council. Labbei; conversation about the incarnation of God the Word (no. 15); conversation given on the feast of John the Baptist (no. 16), which is in the editions of Concil. Ephesin. existed only in Latin. language; conversation on the parable of the vineyard (no. 17); three brief teachings on the transfer of the relics of St. Cyrus and John (sub. Num. 18); diatribe against eunuchs (s. num. 19); the word that Christ should be called not a God-bearing man, but God made man (S. num. 20); excerpts from the speech to the Alexandrians on faith (S. num. 21); another excerpt from a speech on faith (in one Latin translation), from a conversation to the Alexandrians (S. num. 22); finally (dubious) speech about the death of the three youths and the wisest Daniel. Thus in Greek with Latin translation we have in Curs. compl. Patr. Please note the following composition of the sermons of St. Cyril of Alexandria: 29 Easter sermons (homiliae paschales); of these 17, in addition to parallel Latin, we also have Arnobiev’s free translation; 24 sermons for various occasions (homiliae divirsae), - 18 in general, 5 in excerpts; The sermons are arranged in this order: “Conversation 1, spoken in Ephesus, is very good”; "Conversation 2, spoken in Ephesus, on St. Evangelist John" ; “conversation 3, about the preacher who, before Cyril, spoke a sermon about the incarnation of the Lord”; - “conversation 4, spoken in Ephesus, against Nestorius, when seven bishops joined St. Mary, i.e., the council that took place in the church “St. Mary”; “conversation 5, spoken in Ephesus, 'when the meetings for the deposition of Nestorius ended”; “conversation 6, - in Ephesus, against John, the renegade of Antioch,” that is, from the council; "conversation 7, spoken in Ephesus, before Cyril was arrested by Comite and taken into custody"; “conversation 8, (excerpt), in Ephesus, in the great church of the so-called “Mary”; “conversation 9, on the Transfiguration of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ”; “conversation 10, on the Last Supper and the washing of feet at the holy heel (sic)”; “conversation 11, a word of praise to Holy Mary the Mother of God”; “conversation 12, at the Meeting of our Lord Jesus Christ; conversation 13, on St. Feast of the Vaiy and the Donkey’s Colt”; “conversation 14, about the exodus of the soul and the second coming”; “conversation 15, about the incarnation of God the Word”; “conversation 16, on the feast of St. John the Baptist" ; “conversation 17, on the parable of the vineyard”; “3 brief teachings on the transfer of the relics of St. Cyrus and John" (all three under the same number 18); “accusatory speech (excerpt) against eunuchs” (at number 19); , from a conversation about what needs to be said: “Man is not a God-bearer, but God made man,” excerpt number 20; “from the solemn speech to the Alexandrians about faith” - excerpts in different editions (under number 21); “from a conversation with the Alexandrians” (excerpt) number 22; "speech about the death of the 3 youths and the wisest Daniel" - a passage falsely attributed to Cyril. In Russian translated preaching literature, the sermons of St. Cyril are little known; to date, only three sermons of St. Cyril, placed in the Christian Reading, have been translated, namely: "The Word on the Exodus of the Soul and on the Second Coming 11 (in Migne under number 14) in 1841; “conversation at the entrance to St. Pentecost” (i.e., one of the “Easter sermons” in the Migne edition, number 18) and “conversation on St. the holiday of Vay and the Donkey” (in Migne under number 13) in 1842. There are sermons attributed to Cyril in ancient Russian collections of sermons (“Zlatostrue”, “Chrysostom”, etc.); Without having such collections at hand, we cannot say anything definite about Cyril’s sermons contained there. One can, however, think that these sermons are nothing more than translations of passages from explanations of the Gospels (Luke, Matthew, etc.), which have been preserved to us in various sets (catenae) of paternal interpretations, where they are sometimes called interpretation (έρμηνεία), sometimes conversations (όμιλία). But it is difficult to admit that these were real sermons, if we remember how late Cyril’s sermons became known and were published even in the West, to which, in ancient times of the Church, the Alexandrian patriarchs stood on more friendly terms than to Constantinople, from where the Russians took the sermons of St. Greek Fathers and Preachers. Easter sermons 59. #The concept of them; determining the time of appearance of each of them and presenting the content. First place in order of sermon placement in Curs. compl. Patrol. Migne (t. 77th) is occupied by Λό ϒ οι έορταστιχοί - homiliae paschales, i.e. words, or festive sermons, representing the most extensive group of sermons of St. Kirill (pages 401 – 981). From the Latin translation of the title of the named class of sermons it is clear that not every Christian holiday was meant by Cyril by the word. Indeed, in the most numerous places of this kind of sermons, the word έορτή, when used with the member (ή), is everywhere given by Cyril a private, special meaning. In the language of Cyril ή (έορτή) means the holiday of Easter, as a holiday of the Church of Christ in its own, or primary sense - χατ έξοχήν. Throughout the universe, says Cyril in the 1st sermon (page 401), the brilliant light of our joyful and divine Holiday shines and opens.” “The time of the Holy Feast is shining upon us again,” he says in another conversation (4, p. 453). And in general, Cyril begins almost every Easter conversation with the same exact words (h. p. 5, β ’ p. 475; h. r. 6, α ’ p. 500; h. r. 7, a, p. 536; h. r. 8, a’, r. 553; etc.); uses this word several times with the same special meaning in the middle of a conversation. This holiday is nothing more than the remembrance and celebration of the Savior’s victory over the devil, sin and death, His rising from the dead, and so on. The preacher invariably expresses the final words of each sermon in the following Form: “έορτάζοντες δέ τή έξής έπιϕωσχόυση To υριαχή (ήμέρα)”, i.e. e. – celebrating the very Feast at dawn of the next (after Saturday) Sunday” a.. Thus, L ό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί are Easter sermons. Usually, sermons on holidays were and are delivered on the very days of celebration. But this was not the case with Easter sermons. On the contrary, as can be seen from the dates at the end of each Easter sermon, they were pronounced even before the onset of the Holy Pentecost and were intended to show from what date the Pentecost should begin, and then the following ones - “the week of the Saving Easter (in our opinion, “Holy Week”), “the end of fasting on the deep evening of Saturday” and, finally, the holiday of Easter itself. Consequently, Easter sermons constituted a special phenomenon, exceptional among church sermons. Later church historians and theologians, speaking about the sermons we are considering (or just mentioning them), put them in connection with the special duty of the Alexandrian archbishops to annually send notifications to other churches about the day of Easter celebration 60. Therefore, both in the Migne edition and in other writers, Cyril’s Easter sermons are constantly identified with the Easter messages we just mentioned, called either homiliae peschales or epistolae paschales. In support of such opinions, the newest scientists refer to certain testimonies of ancient church historians and writers who mention either the custom of the Alexandrian high priests to proclaim the day of Easter or directly about such letters of one or another Alexandrian Saint. Thus, we need to resolve the question, firstly, about what Easter letters or messages were in ancient times, to whom they were addressed, what they contained, etc., and secondly, about whether it is possible to see precisely the so-called Easter sermons in the Easter sermons we are studying. messages 61 From the church history of Socrates Scholasticus it is clear that among the actions of the Nicene Ecumenical Council (325) was, among other things, the establishment of a simultaneous celebration of Easter in all churches, which had not happened until now. "All Eastern brothers, we read in the letter of the fathers of the Council of Nicaea to the Alexandrian Church, 'who previously celebrated Easter together with the Jews, will henceforth celebrate Easter together with the Romans, with us and with all who have been keeping it in our way since ancient times.' something special was prescribed regarding the day of Easter celebration in comparison with other metropolitans. Likewise, in the district letter of Emperor Constantine 63 to the churches, where the decree of the Council of Nicaea on the celebration of Easter is set out in detail (not to celebrate with the Jews - once a year - but for everyone on the same day - why on the same day, etc.), one cannot find any indication of the assignment of special responsibilities regarding Easter to the Alexandrian high priest. By virtue of such an order, as addressed to all churches, each metropolitan and bishop had to make corresponding instructions in their areas. History indeed shows that messages about the celebration of Easter were sent not only by the bishops of Alexandria - Athanasius, Theophilos, etc., but also by bishops of other churches, for example. Ambrose of Milan 64. The same is evident from the letter (10: Pope Innocent 1 to Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, and from the canons of the councils of Toletan and Bracaren, commanding the metropolitan to announce to other bishops and deacons about the day of Easter, so that the latter, in turn, announce this to the people on the day of the Nativity of Christ after the Gospel reading 65. Based on further mentions of Eusebius (Ts. Ist. book. 7. Ch. 15) about the “festive, or Easter messages” of Dionysius of Alexandria, we can conclude that the custom of announcing the day of Easter already existed before the Council of Nicea, perhaps as a counteraction against the untimely and incorrect celebration of Easter, which often happened. There is no doubt, at least, that such a custom - to proclaim the day of Easter - existed in the Alexandrian church 66. Meanwhile, at the Council of Nicaea, something more was done regarding the time of the celebration of Easter than is conveyed by the documents that have survived to this day about the actions of this council 67 . Chronologists and church historians, speaking about the time of Easter celebration, claim that “at the Council of Nicaea (525) it was decided to celebrate the Easter of Christ after the 1st spring full moon and after the Jewish Passover on 1 Sunday, and that since such subjects required astronomical knowledge, the Council of St. The Fathers instructed the bishops of Alexandria (where astronomical and chronological sciences flourished) to determine the time of Easter celebration in each year" and even to compile Paschal 68 Scientists usually base this opinion on a letter from Pope Leo the Great to Emperor Marcian. Since the acts of the 1st Ecumenical Council have not been preserved, we must therefore seek confirmation of the above words in evidence only more or less close to the time of this Council. And indeed, we find the most precious information about this subject from St. Cyril of Alexandria in his letters and in the aforementioned Pope Leo the Great. Here is what we read on the issue under study from Cyril in his letter to Pope Leo the Great 69 (from 444 years): “I thoroughly investigated what the Council of Nicea determined, namely about the 14th day of the month of all years during the 19-year cycle, so that we would not be mistaken in celebrating together with the Jews and with the heretics Tessareskedecatites on the 14th day of the lunar month. And it was decreed at all councils, except only the Council of Gangra and Caesarea, that no church, no state and no country should do anything contrary to what was approved regarding Easter at the Council of Nicaea. - Believe me, even if the Nicene Council had not compiled the lunar cycle of the first month, it would have been enough for a sample of the Easter reckoning - the Selenite stone (mica) in Persia, the internal brilliance of which with the onset of days (along with the days...) of the first month intensifies and weakens. I informed you of all this because you were in doubt about the day of the first month of this year. Therefore, I warn you not to celebrate Easter, in the case of a high year, in the month of March, but in accordance with the universal church on April 23”) 70. From another letter of Cyril (no. 87) we learn more detailed information about the actions of the Council of Nicaea on this subject (page 385): “Since, says Cyril, as a result of these and similar disagreements that arose throughout the universe, the Easter rule was violated, then by the unanimous opinion of the saints (fathers) of the council, gathered from all over the world, it was determined that the church Alexandria, famous for the perfection of that kind of knowledge, on what day of Kansid or Eid and in what month Easter should according to the rule be celebrated - so that it annually notifies the Roman Church about this, and from here, according to apostolic authority, would accept without any disagreement a certain day of Easter and the entire universal church throughout the world. Since this was invariably kept for a long time and everyone knew that there was no written document in which this question would be resolved, and since it had never happened on the Saturday of Easter, the 21st day of the month, in their opinion the 23rd, from April 16 to the 24th (April), when a doubt would arise whether Easter should be celebrated in the next (i.e. April) month. - this was a great difficulty in the entire church, praetorium and palace. Then the most pious Emperor Theodosius, who always tried to please God not only in human laws, but even in divine ones, asked in writing Saint Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, that he would deign to compile a discussion about the most accurate time calculation of the sacrament of Easter and send this to him" and further. (“Cum his iditur atque hususmodi dissensionibus per universum mundum paschalis regula turbaretur, sanctorum totius orbis cynodi concencione decretum est, ut quoniam apud Alexandriam talis esset reperta ceclesia, quae hujus scientiae perfection clareret, quota Kalendarum vel Iduum, et quota luna Pascha rite debeat celebrari, per singulos annos Romanae eccleslae litteris intimaret unde apostolica anctoritate universalis ecclesia per totum orbem diffinitum Paschae diem sine ulla disseptatione cognosceret Quod cum per multa saecula partier custodissent, mullamque inde scripturarum quispiam crederet, ubi illa quaestio solveretur, et nonnunquam occurreret ut in sabbato Paschae luna XXI, quae illis XXIII, a quintodecimo Kalendarum Maarum usque in octavum, quasi in secundo mense Pascha celebrare metuerent, essetque magna confusion in omni ecclesia, praetorio, vel palatio, Theodosius imperator religiosissimus, qui non solum in humanis, verum etiam in divinis logibus placere Deo simper studuit, sanctum Theophilum Alehandriae urbis episcopum suis litterus conrogavit, ut de sacramento Paschae evidentissima fationr dissereret, sibique dirigere dignaretur..."). We find the same evidence in the letter of Pope Leo the Great to the Emperor Marcian, to which historians usually refer when discussing the establishment of the time for the celebration of Easter and the Easter messages of the Archbishop of Alexandria 71 We will present the passage we need in the Russian translation: “Although the holiday of Easter, which mainly affirms the sacrament of human salvation, should always be celebrated in the first month, however, due to the variability of the Phases of the lunar course, the determination of the time of the most sacred day in most cases is doubtful and from here something often happens that should not have happened, namely, that not the whole church at the same time preserves what should only be in agreement. Therefore, St. took care. the fathers eliminate the possibility of such an error by entrusting full concern about this to the bishop of Alexandria, since it is believed that the Egyptians have been practicing the art of chronology since ancient times, by which it is possible to determine (eveniret) on what day in each year the above-mentioned celebration should take place - so that from here it would be further declared to the apostolic department, and according to its instructions, the (named) notification would be distributed to all further churches.” So, from all the above evidence, the following conclusions can be drawn: the custom of announcing with Easter messages the day of celebration of the future Easter was a general custom in the ancient church; it existed in some churches (such as Alexandria) even before the first Ecumenical Council. Since the time of the latter, when the simultaneous celebration of Easter was approved in all churches of the world, the duty in question was assigned to all metropolitans and archbishops. But since the decree on the one-time celebration of Easter required an accurate and correct determination of the day of the Easter holiday in each year (for there were no preliminary Easter tables before Theophilus), the same Council of Nicaea ordered the Alexandrian archbishops (for reasons already known to us) to annually determine the day of celebration of the next Easter and let the Roman bishop know about it. Thus, from the time of the Council of Nicea, the Alexandrian archbishops had to not only their subordinate bishops - which was the case before and what other metropolitans and bishops were doing now - but also the Roman high priest to announce the time of the future Easter holiday. Hence, between the "Easter announcements*, or letters, otherwise - the "festive messages" of the successors of the Apostle Mark, we must distinguish between notifications of three kinds: some addressed to the Roman bishop, others - to the metropolitans and bishops of Egypt, others - actually to the flock of the Alexandrian bishopric. The first and second types of notifications were, in the proper sense, "letters" and, or "epistles" (epistola - έπιςολή), the third was only a “appearance”, which however had the Form and character of a church sermon. The fact that Cyril of Alexandria had messages of the 1st kind is clear from the words we cited above; One can only guess that Cyril composed “notifications” for the other 2 clans, but one can also find some indications from his contemporaries. Thus 72 Andrew, Bishop of Hierapolis, in a letter to Akakios of Beria (Ar. Balusium in coll. concil. p. 762) speaks of the “holiday letters” of St. Kirill, distinguishing them from other letters. – Now the question arises, to what type of “notifications” should the λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί we are studying be classified? We think that they could not be "letters" or "epistles" in the proper sense, and therefore we attribute them to the third kind, that is, we consider them simply Easter sermons. λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί cannot belong to the epistles, or letters of the 1st kind, first of all, in their content, which is entirely, without exception, addressed to Alexandria and the Egyptian land. The author does not say a single word anywhere about any co-bishop, only once does he speak about the fathers and ministers of the altars (h. r. β ’, r. 549), but undoubtedly in this place he means the abbots of the monasteries and the priests of the village inhabitants. λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί constantly mean only the flock and subordinate persons, they are called “children, children, brothers, beloved” (πάιόες, τέχνια, άόελϕοί, ά ϒ απητοί), inhabiting the Egyptian land (δσοι τήν А ί ϒ υπτίων νέμονται χώραν), expose in them such vices and shortcomings that are characteristic only of Egypt and its inhabitants (robbery, civil strife, strife), talk about customs and activities (agriculture, cattle breeding, gardening), again most characteristic of Egypt. - Further, as can be seen from the above letters of Cyril (under numbers 86 and 87) and Pope Leo (under number 94), the “holiday or Easter messages” of the Alexandrian bishop to the Roman bishop were not conversations or sermons at all, but simply Easter calculations. An example of them can be seen precisely in Cyril’s letter to Pope Leo (number 86) or in his letter “to Aurelius and Valentine and other bishops who were at the African Council” (number 85, pag. 376 – 377), where he announces the time of Easter celebration in 434; Meanwhile, the Easter sermons we are considering are, in the full sense of the word, church sermons. Cyril treats in them about dogmatic and moral subjects - about faith, knowledge of God, about the mystery of the economy, about the face of Jesus Christ, about virtue and piety, about sin and vices, about fasting, prayer, poverty, courage and patience, luxury, wealth, superstition, dual faith, and the stiff-neckedness of the Jews. Wouldn't it be strange to write about all this, especially in almost every letter about the cruelties of the Jews, to the Roman high priest? The main part of Easter sermons is not the definition of the time of Easter celebration, but the moral and dogmatic element. – Thirdly, as we already know, St. Cyril was out of communication with the Roman Church until 419 and, therefore, could in no way send messages of this kind, such as λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί, to the bishop of the eternal city. Meanwhile, 6 Easter sermons, implying the closest and closest fraternal communication between their author and the persons to whom they are addressed, were written precisely before 420. One can even assume that before 419 St. Cyril did not even send to the Roman bishop those Easter messages that the Council of Nicea had in mind, as can be seen from the letters of Cyril and Leo. Finally, the very definition of time in the “Easter sermons" according to the Egyptian calendar (i.e., in Egyptian months and dates) shows that they were not appointed for foreign churches, but only for their own. Otherwise, the time of Easter celebration would have been shown in them according to the calendar, or in the dates and months of those churches to which Cyril addressed his messages, as we actually see in Cyril’s “epistle to Aurelius and Valentine (under number. 85, from 434) and to Pope Leo (from 444 under number 86). Decisively rejecting the meaning of the λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί we are considering as Easter messages sent to the Roman bishop, we cannot recognize them as Easter messages of the 2nd kind. The latter, as we have seen, had their basis mainly at the disposal of the Council of Nicaea, so that the main archbishops - metropolitans - would announce to their subordinate metropolitans and bishops about the day or time of celebration of the upcoming Easter. However, the shepherd of Alexandria in each of his Easter sermons, having a reason to talk about the said order, never refers to it. The motive for the festive sermon is constantly presented either by “fatherly custom” 73, or by the command of the Holy Scriptures for the altar server to preach, or simply by the greatness of the upcoming holiday. By “fatherly custom,” “coming from ancient times,” the author means, of course, the order of the ecumenical council, which took place only 100 years before this, but, of course, a more ancient custom that existed even in the times of Heraclos and Dionysius, who delivered “holiday sermons” before Easter. The preacher sees the need for such a sermon, sanctified by ancient custom, in the importance of the holiday itself. “It follows,” he says (h. p. 22, cont.), “before our holy holiday comes, sermons about it should shine forth,” for, he says in another sermon, after the words: “So let our word go forth into the middle, proclaiming with a blessed sermon the auspicious day of this holiday” (h. p. 2, a, p. 428), - or so generously human nature has been blessed by the Savior's love for mankind, that even if we were silent, the stones would cry out (Luke 19:40), as the Savior himself says." Consequently, the preacher has a moral goal in mind, as in any other sermon. "Glorious and honorable is the reason for which they have gathered here, teaches the Saint (h.r. 19, prelude); he requires, in my opinion, the best oratorical speeches and refined eloquence in order to sufficiently reveal what exceeds the word." - There are other incentives for church preaching: this is the duty of the preacher of the holy order, assigned to him by divine law. Almost every time, starting his Easter sermon, he speaks about this duty. But it is remarkable and very important for us that he refers to the Holy Scriptures in support of his words, especially Thus, in the duty to preach before the holiday of Easter (χήρυ ϒ μα), Saint Cyril sees the general duty of preaching, established in the Old Testament (h. p. I, a, p. 401 - 404) “So, when I am unworthy, he continues (h. r. 405), the lot of the priesthood calls me to preach, then, fearing what is written - speak, do not be silent, I, of necessity, begin to write this,” and a little later: “Hearing Paul writing - woe is me if I do not preach the gospel - I set out with fear and beyond my strength to preach” - Sacred words, he repeats on the 14th of Easter. preaching (-a, p. 709), from ancient times they sang the features of our holy holiday, they established that when it comes, it should be announced with a far-reaching word, saying: “Blow the trumpet in the new moon, on the auspicious day of your holiday... But leaving the inappropriate sound of trumpets..., we will use the expedient and decent use of preaching as a sign of our holiday." Consequently, not from the definition of Nicene Council, the saint derived his duty to compile λό ϒ ους έορταςιχούς;, and from the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament 74 (sometimes the New). Easter messages to regional bishops, then it would be most natural for Cyril to rely on the resolution of the Council of Nicaea. Secondly, on the basis of the “letter or epistle of St.” already quoted by us. Cyril to Aurelius and Valentine and other bishops who were present at the “African Council” (no. 85, pp. 376 - 377), we again. we have the opportunity to conclude that λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί were not Easter messages to the Egyptian and African bishops. The Easter letter of St. Athanasius the Great to the African bishops shows that the Alexandrian bishops, along with the bishops of their archdiocese, were obliged to notify the African bishops about the time of Easter celebration. Meanwhile, if we consider λό ϒ ους έορταςιχούς; Easter messages, it would turn out that in the same year Cyril wrote two messages about the same subject to the same bishops. Thus, the said letter from Cyril intends to announce the time of Easter celebration: “P ερί δέ τού P άσχα, ώς έ ϒ ράψατε, ά ϒϒ έλλομεν ύμίν τή πρό δεχαεπτά K αλανδών M αίων ήμών έπιτελέσοντας τή ύπεισερχομένη ίνόιχτιώνι.” This letter, as can be seen from the meaning of Easter 75 (April 15), refers to the year 434 or 423 (since in both years Easter fell precisely on the designated 15th day of April). But with the same dates about Easter (20 Farmuoi or April 15), we have two Easter sermons, of which one (under number 11 and.) in its content should be attributed to the year 423, and the other (under number 22) to the year 434. Why, one might ask, would it be necessary to send a special message about the day of the next Easter to Aurelius and Valentine, if the “Easter sermons” (λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί), relating to the same year and Easter, were sent to the Egyptian and African 76 bishops? The fact, further, that Cyril in the works under consideration never mentions any co-bishop, of course, serves as confirmation of the position we defend, that λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί were messages to the metropolitans and bishops subordinate to the Alexandrian See. If Cyril makes similar appeals (i.e. to his co-bishops) in other letters and epistles (for example, in the same 85th letter, “to Aurelius and Valentine,” then it would be strange that he did not do the same in any of the 29 Easter sermons. Moreover, the very appeals of the archpastor to his listeners and readers are so close and immediate that they exclude any thought about mediation between him and readers or listeners of any other bishops. Cyril speaks in these sermons to such persons who have only him as their bishop, as their only teacher, leader and shepherd. He himself makes it his duty, upon accepting the episcopal rank, to teach his flock faith and good life (h. p. 1, a’, β᾿). “It is necessary,” he turns his speech to the Egyptian farmers (h. r. 7, β ’, r. 542), “so that we, being spiritual fathers, do not leave you without admonitions, but, like children, lead you to a good and social life." These and numerous similar passages can relate, as it seems to us, only to the flock of Cyril himself. In relation to the flocks of other bishops, even subordinates, and, to him, the shepherd could not say this, since each bishop is vested with the right and responsibility of teaching and guiding his flock. In the same way, only to The flock of the Alexandrian bishopric could most naturally relate to the author's frequent references to fields and yellowing fields, to herds of sheep and cows - which points specifically to the lower part of Egypt as the most fertile and capable of agriculture. The examples of sailors cited by Kiirill, the constant philippics against the Jews, the accurate and detailed knowledge of the vices, needs and requirements of the flock involuntarily suggest that λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί were intended for residents of the seaside, for villages and hamlets adjacent and generally not far from Alexandria, where there really were many Jews and the circumstances of their lives could be well known to Kirill. It is not superfluous to note that we have “holiday sermons” only for the years 414–442; meanwhile, St. Cyril was a priest from 112 to 444. But the force of the decrees of the Council of Nicea, Cyril had to notify the bishops subordinate to him annually; meanwhile, Cyril, a zealous executor of church and conciliar regulations, spoke his first “Easter sermon” only in 414, as is certain can be seen from his own instructions contained in it. Again, therefore, we have to conclude that λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί were not epistles written by the Council of Nicea, but only the usual (from ancient times) pre-holiday sermon. Finally, the consideration that the dates and months of the celebration of Easter are indicated only according to the Egyptian calendar, and not any other (for example, Abyssinian, etc.), and that the sermons themselves were pronounced very close to the 40th, almost before the very beginning of it, makes us think that λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί did not go beyond the Alexandrian flock archdiocese. As one might think, Cyril delivered the sermons in question only a few days before the Holy Pentecost. Expressions of Cyril: “our all-glorious holiday, having completed a year’s revolution, is already standing at our doors and, having barely crossed the threshold, enters our hearts” (h. p. 2, a’. p. 428), or: “here again the coveted time of our holy holiday, coming to us after its circular revolution, rises again; like one returning to his homeland from a foreign country, it appears to you already in the harbor and moored ropes to the shore; it is already here, almost present among us” (h. p. 7, a, p, 530), etc. - not rhetorical figures and techniques, but actual truth. This is confirmed by the paintings of springtime depicted by Kirill. He very often paints fields full of greenery and flowers, a yellowed field of wheat ready for harvest, and full and ripe clusters of grapes. This means that this was already the last period of spring, the time of harvest and ripening of grapes, which in Egypt happens around March. If so, then the sermons were delivered by the shepherd of Alexandria close to Easter. But, of course, in this case, λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί could not have reached all the bishops of the vast Alexandrian archdiocese in due time, and if we accept as a reliable fact the opinion affirmed by historians and scientists that the announcements about Easter Day were read by local bishops on the day of the Nativity of Christ, after the Gospel reading, then the λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί we are considering, as pronounced just before Pentecost itself, can in no way belong to the category of “holiday or Easter messages” We consider λό ϒ ους έορταςιχούς in its own. sense of the word sermons delivered by St. Cyril annually before the offensive of St. Pentecost in the Alexandria Church with the aim of notifying both the day of the upcoming Easter and the time of church times and festivals associated with it, and in view of this, teaching the corresponding dogmatic and moral lessons. We have indications of this in the sermons themselves. Thus, the shepherd of Alexandria himself assimilates their meaning - χήρο ϒ μα: “O ύχού έπί τό χηρύττειν χάμέ τόν ταπεινόν τού τής ίεροσύνης χαλούντος σχήματος, he says (h. r. 1. r. 405), or (h. r. 22, rgolog.): προαναλάμψαι χήρο ϒ μα ..., (h. r. 14, r. 709): τού χηρο ϒ ματος χρείαν τοίς τής έορτής "" - In almost every sermon, further, he uses the expression: “to go out into the middle with a (church) sermon”, “I speak before you” 77, etc. Even more often (in each sermon several times) there is a mention of listeners 78, meanwhile, it is never said about readers, which would be necessary if λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί were messages. - Speaking about listeners, Kirill often mentions the applause and ovation that accompanied his sermons, - about oratorical techniques and skillful pronunciation, about his weak stuttering diction 79, which would absolutely make no sense under the assumption that λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί were not sermons, but messages 80. No less often St. Cyril mentions that he pronounces among the congregation that these meetings were numerous, that they took place somewhere in a certain place (i.e. in the church, for example, St. Mark, in the Church of Alexander..), which Cyril denotes with the word “here”, “here”; the meeting is often denoted by the word - πανή ϒ υρις 81. Finally, Cyril himself constantly names his Hundreds of such places can be indicated 82. But, being sermons in the proper sense, λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί had at the same time the purpose of announcing to the Alexandrian flock about the time of celebrating Easter. In the prologue of the 22nd Easter sermon we read: το λο ϒ ίδιον, ἣϒ ουν ή έπιςολή. The expression έπιςολή occurs only once in all Easter sermons, and indicates, as it seems to us, precisely the purpose that the “Easter sermons” had, by the way. 'E πιςολή here has the meaning of “news,” “notification,” “order,” which meaning is often acquired by it. In this sense, it is very appropriate in this case, since λό ϒ οι έορταςιχοί had a informative or calendar character for listeners and flocks. At the same time, one should delve somewhat into the circumstances of life at that time. Of course, the art of chronology was widely developed and flourished in Alexandria, but we dare to think that even the Alexandrians did not have such calendars as we now use. In the absence of them, as well as Easter tables (from Cyril’s letter we learn that the tables were compiled for the first time by Theophilus, but for Emperor Theodosius), it was very difficult for ordinary believers to know and determine the time of the so-called moving holidays. In this case, the Alexandrian pastor, like every other bishop in his diocese, served for the Alexandrians, so to speak, as a living calendar in determining the time and duration of moving church holidays with Easter at the head. Easter sermons indeed confirm this. The preacher usually says in them that the Easter holiday is approaching with the time of fasting of the Holy Pentecost preceding it, then he shows the need for fasting, virtue, faith and Christian deeds in general, indicating in the conclusion the very dates of the coming holidays. The custom of announcing to your flock the time of the upcoming Easter of the flocks has been especially necessary since the Council of Nicea, when all churches and all believers were commanded to celebrate Easter at the same time. Each believer, therefore, had to conform to this decree, and, in order not to make mistakes, needed the guidance of the bishop. Not only the inhabitants of Alexandria, but also the inhabitants of the villages and villages belonging to his diocese gathered in large numbers for such a proclamation by the Bishop of Alexandria. Expressions indicating this (for example, h. p. 7, p. 536: είς θίασον ἔνα τουάπό παντάχοθεν συνα ϒ είρειν) are not found in Cyril once . – With this understanding of the matter, the name έπιςολή when applied to Easter sermons becomes very understandable and legitimate. But if we take it in its literal meaning, that is, in the sense of a “letter" or “message,” then something very awkward would come out. Kirill says in this prologue that he spoke with the word of the church not in order to shine with the harmony of the structure of speech, oratory, the brilliance of eloquence and diction (έυέπειαν ... έυςομίας) not to receive applause from listeners (χρότοι ϛ άχροωμένων); but all this can be talked about not in relation to the “letter”, but in relation to the spoken speech. – Thus έπιςολή means “news”; This is confirmed by the particle ή ϒ ουν, complementing the concept λο ϒ ίδιον, which in this case did not express the purpose or meaning of the sermon being preached. However, not all the flock, co-bishops and priests of the Alexandrian bishopric could be present at the announcement of St. Cyril during the celebration of Easter and with the moral and dogmatic edification taught by him in accordance with the events proclaimed; Therefore, the “Easter sermons,” after being delivered in the church by Cyril himself, were sent for guidance to those serving in the diocese of the Alexandrian archbishop - co-bishops and priests, so that they could also be given in these sermons what was given to the townspeople who listened to them. In this case, Cyril was required to add a greeting to the sermons, which is what we actually find in the 25th Easter sermon. Such a greeting is there after the word - 'A μήν: A σπασάσθα άλλήους έν ϕιλήματιά ϒ ίψ. ‘And όπάζονται ύμ ᾱ ς οί σύν έμοί άδελϕοί – We meet a similar greeting in the Arnobiev translation of the 17th Easter sermon, although it is not in the Greek original and text. Easter sermons of St. Cyril pronounced annually before joining St. Pentecost for 29 years, as shown by the number of sermons of this kind that have reached us. Consequently, the number of sermons does not somewhat coincide with the number of years of Cyril’s priestly ministry, of which there were 32. So, in what year did the Easter sermons of St. begin? Kirill, in what order did they continue, and in what year and with what sermon did they end? Otherwise, which of the saint’s sermons was the first, and what is their sequential order until the last, 29th sermon? Before answering this question, we must show what tools we have for determining the chronological sequence of sermons, and how we can use these tools. We do not find any direct indication of the year of this or that Easter sermon in Cyril. Speaking about the time of Easter celebration, he defines only the months and dates in which Easter with its forerunners and companions should be celebrated in the modern preaching year. Consequently, only these monthly and numerical definitions of the Easter holiday and the church times depending on it can serve as the only means of finding the year of the sermon itself. But we must know what dates Easter was in each year of Cyril’s ministry from other sources. But this method of coincidence (unfortunately, we could not think of another) of the Easter numbers in one or another of Cyril’s Easter sermons with the Easter numbers in this or that year of Cyril’s bishopric - And this method can be immediately applied by us, because, on the one hand, the dates and months of the celebration of Easter for Cyril are shown according to the Egyptian calendar, and on the other, Easter during the 32-year priesthood of Cyril often happened on the same and the same dates in several years and between Easter sermons there are a significant number with the same dates about Easter. Thus, before proceeding with the chronological distribution of the sermons, we must present the necessary information about the Egyptian calendar. Scientific research on this issue is found in the works of the Venerable Bede (“de ratione temporum”), Bucherius (“de doctrina temporum”), Petavia (“de doctrina temporum”) and in the special work of Averanius of Florence — “de mensibus Aegyptorum”, which by the way says that a definite view of the Egyptian calendar has not been established among researchers, which we ourselves had the opportunity to verify. We could not use any of the works we named. The only guidance for us in this case was the work Le Quien: Oriens Christianus, in which, although there is no special study of the issue that interests us, there is, however, a significant number of dates from the Egyptian calendar, transferred to the Roman numeral based on the research of Bucherius and Petavius. The Alexandrians counted the years in two ways: civil (civilis) or Diocletian, and Christian or popular (vulgaris). The first began in the year 284, during the reign of Diocletian 83, and the second, of course, from the Nativity of Christ. Moreover, the beginning of the year for the Egyptians, at least at the time we are considering, was different from that of the Romans. For the latter, the official year began (from the time of Caesar) in March; among the Alexandrians from the month of September. Such a September year, as scientists chronologists think - Khavsky, Gorbachevsky and others, was established in Alexandria after the 1st Ecumenical Council, when the time for celebrating Easter was determined. Khavsky speaks about this not entirely affirmatively when he expresses himself: “At the same council (Nicaea) the celebration of the new year was approved from September - the beginning of the indict... Some chronologists believe that the creation of a new Easter circle followed in 525.” 84 But Gorbachevsky affirms the first opinion decisively: “In the 4th century, he says 85, shortly after 1 Nicea Council, which determined the time of the celebration of Easter, was compiled by the Alexandrian scholars of Paschal 86. Since in the same century, in 313, under Constantine the Great, instead of counting by Olympiads, reckoning was introduced by indicts, or fifteen years, which began on September 1, it is obvious that the beginning of the year according to Paschal, compiled by Alexandrian scientists, It couldn’t have been other than September 1st. This is most convincingly confirmed by the vruceleto system 87, which is located from the 1st day of September so that the first year of the solar circle 88, and therefore the 1st vruceleto, will always fall on the 1st day of September, which in the first circle of the sun always happens on Sunday, which is completely in accordance with the teaching of Holy Scripture, according to which the first day of the creation of the world is Sunday, and the last 6 is Friday. And therefore, all Easter calculations, such as indictions, lunar 89 and solar circles, indictions 90 usually begin from the first day of the creation of the world, i.e. from September 1.” “In the 6th century, Marcus Aurelius Cassiodorus 91,” continues Gorbachevsky, “worked on the Paschalia and brought it to the proper definition and completeness; it was through his labors that it received the form in which it still exists today. To this time should be attributed the replacement of the September year with the March year and the decision to count from the creation of the world not 5500 years, according to the account of Julius Africanus, but 5508 years, according to the account adopted by the Greeks since the time of Heraclius." But arguing that the Alexandrian year began in September 92 and Gorbachevsky does not show in what relation this year stood to other years, for example, the March one. The answer to this is found in Khavsky. In his opinion, the September year follows the March one, which is clear, for example, from the following table: In Easter terms, the distinction between the years of March and September is very important. So, in the March year of Easter, there was, so to speak, either no year at all, or it happened very rarely, when, precisely, Lent with the preparatory weeks began in March. As it was closely related to the Pentecostal period that preceded it, Easter in most cases did not refer to the current March year, but to the previous year, although the holiday itself fell in the current year. The fact is that the March year cut Easter with its preparatory and subsequent weeks into two years - old and new. For example, Easter in 412, the year in which Cyril took the throne, which fell on March 26, preparatory weeks for fasting and part of the four-day period fell on the previous March 411 year, while the holiday itself fell on the current March 412 year. But in this case, Easter on March 26 is most naturally attributed to the year 411, and not to 412. Easter of 412 is best considered to be Easter of 413 (April 14). – On the contrary, in the September year Easter always fell in the same year. From this it naturally follows that in the celebration of Easter, the September year was already ahead of the March year, while in general it was 6 months behind the March year. This is because, of course, in the 1st March year there could not be Easter, while in the 1st September it was possible. Therefore, the September year, younger by 6 months than the March one, in Easter terms became 6 months older than the March one. So while Easter on March 26 should most likely be attributed not to the March year 412, in which there was only the end of it, but to 411; and therefore the Easter of the year 412 of March was the Easter of the year 413 itself, i.e. April 14. The September year, meanwhile, 412, starting 6 months after the March year, had Easter on March 26, i.e. Easter of the March year 411 itself; Easter, on April 14, fell in the following September 413 year, and not in 412, as it was in the March year 93. It is much more difficult to translate into our months and numbers - the numbers and months of the Egyptian calendar. In this regard, even among scientists there is no common opinion. However, using the numerous calendar notes scattered throughout Le Quien's work on certain events, we can say the following about the Egyptian calendar. Egyptian months do not exactly coincide with our known months in numbers and duration. They usually began around the last days of our previous months and therefore ended sooner (about 5 days) than ours corresponding to them. The largest and smallest differences between our and Egyptian months occur in December and September. However, we will present the relationship between the Egyptian and our months in the following table: However, in Le Quien there are also contradictory indications: for example, the month Athur means for him either November or April, the month Bayni means June, July, etc., and there are even more disagreements in numbers. Since, further, we are dealing with the Easter church time, which falls mainly on the months - Mehir, Famenoth, Farmufi, we will present the calendar of these months in full: In accordance with this table, we can transfer the dates in Cyril’s sermons to our date 94 From chronological ones. tables for determining the time of celebration of Easter in 412 - 444, we had at hand the tables of Khavsky and Gorbachevsky 100. In essence, they are similar down to the smallest detail, but in the formulation of the matter they differ somewhat. Thus, Khavsky determines the time of Easter by three years: March, September and January, while Gorbachevsky determines the time by September alone. Taking into account that in Alexandria the September reckoning was used, as well as the relationship in which the September and March years stand in relation to Easter, which we have already talked about, we must therefore determine the year and in accordance with this relationship the years of delivering Easter sermons. For example, the 1st sermon of Cyril means the celebration of Easter on March 22, in Gorbachevsky’s tables we find that Easter on this date happened in 414; According to the March year, Khavsky had it in 415. Of course, both are the same Easter; but the difference is that the March year, as we have already said, although in general is 6 months older than the September year, but, since it does not have a contemporary Easter, adds the Easter of the next year to itself, and thus becomes 6 months younger than the September year in Easter terms, since the latter always has its own Easter. This matter is more clearly presented in such a way that Easter on March 22 belongs entirely to September 414 (since it falls in the very middle of it), while to March, which ends in February, only its preparatory weeks; itself happens already in 415. Therefore, when converting Easter from a March year to a September year, it is important to reduce the year by its unit, and vice versa. Equally, the imaginary difference between the tables of Khavsky and Gorbachevsky and in the indications of the Vysokos is imaginary already because the time of the celebration of Easter, on which the Vysokos have an influence, is designated in both in a similar way for thousands of years. This difference concerns one year, for example, in Gorbachevsky the year 412 is designated as high-year, while in Khavsky it is 411. But Gorbachevsky, as dealing with the September year, of course, defines high-rise by this year, while Khavsky places high-year in the column of the March year. This is where the apparent disagreement comes from. In fact, both 411 and the March year and 412 September mean the same high. It was at that time, as now, that through certain periods (after 3 years on the fourth) the month of February increased by one day. And although the Romans counted the same 28 days in February in this case, in fact February had 29 days. the increase in the day became unnoticeable due to the fact that the Romans in this case considered the two closest days after February 23 to be one day and designated the first by ante diem sextum Kal. Mart. (as in any other year), the second by ante diem bissextum (hence the “leap year”) Cal. Mart. But the month of February ended the March (it was a civil year) year; from March the new March civil year began. According to the civil designation, the past year was indeed considered a high year. But in church terms, the Highlands were of primary importance for the future. Now, if, as Khavsky shows, an extra day was added to the 411 civil year (at the end of February, and then the year itself), then it already means that the actual high year will not be this 411, which has already passed, but the next 412, because in the latter only those successive changes in the days of the months and the dates of Easter that follow throughout the whole year from 23 could have had an effect. February 411 (March) to February 23, 412 (March). But from September of the month 412 of March the year of September 412 began. Thus, although bissextus dies was added to the year 411, 6 days before its end, it affected the March and September years of 412 with its results. Hence the Easter high year was not 411, but 412 March or September year. Thus, the apparent difference occurs because Khavsky notes the year of adding an extra day to the month of February; Gorbachevsky shows the highest church year. But even with such a ratio between high-flying years in March and September, how can we be sure that the high-flying years were precisely 412, 416, and so on? We find the most precious indication of this in Cyril’s letter to Pope Leo the Great (no. 86, pag. 377). In this place St. Kirill says: Simul Pascha selebremus Kal. IX Maii propter rationem embolisti anni... Since IX Kal. Maii April 23, then, therefore, Easter in this high year fell on April 23. But Easter was on April 23 only in 444 during the entire time of Cyril’s priesthood. If so, then the year 414 was precisely, according to the testimony of Cyril himself, a high-ranking year, since he himself expresses it: propter rationem embolisti anni, that is, a high-ranking or intercalary year (a simple year was designated: communis annus). But knowing exactly one high year, we can easily determine other simple and high years for the entire time of Cyril’s priesthood. It is we who see this very distribution of simple and high-grade years in Gorbachevsky’s tables. Hence, the time of Easter during the years of Cyril’s bishopric can be represented in the following form, where the sign † means a high year: Among the Easter sermons there is one, which by its content and expressions clearly shows that it was the first Easter sermon of St. Kirill. This is sermon number 1. “For when, says the preacher in it (p. 405), according to the righteous Judgment of God, our father Theophilus, worthy of eternal and all-praised memory, departed from this life and settled in the heavenly abodes (and for what reason, this is known to the only Judge of all, I do not undertake to explain), then it fell to me, the least of all, to receive the episcopate, therefore, listening Paul, writing: “Woe is me if I do not preach the good news,” “I go out to preach with fear,” except for this sermon in the series of Easter sermons, its very beginning is such that only one of all the sermons can befit the first Easter sermon of Cyril. While all other Easter sermons, without exception, begin with the word πάλιν, or contain it at the beginning, the named sermon one does not have this word. It is precisely this that begins: “Throughout the entire universe the radiant light of our joyful and divine holiday shines and opens.”... Easter in this sermon is designated March 22; but Easter fell on March 22 - for all the years of Cyril's bishopric - only in 414. Consequently, the year 414 was the first year of the Easter sermon of St. Kirill. Indeed, there are no sermons for the year 412, in which Easter fell on April 14, at all between Cyril’s sermons; but with the date of Easter on April 6, which was Easter in 413, there is one sermon numbered 12. Which sermon should take precedence: number 1 or number 12? The primacy of number 1, as we have seen, is guaranteed by its content and beginning; number 12, according to the expressions at the beginning of the sermon ( άνέλαμψεν έορτή) and in its content indicates its later appearance in a series of sermons of this kind. Indeed, according to the Easter tables, we see that Easter (April 3) fell, in addition to 413, in 424. Therefore, to this year we must attribute sermon number 12. Number 2 is a sermon marking Easter on April 11; but the same 11th day of April means Easter and 2 more sermons numbered 14 and number 25. We also find in the Easter table: April 11th Easter occurred in 3 years - 415, 420 and 437. What year does each of the 3 sermons belong to? Based on the closeness and similarity of the introduction of sermon 101, No. 2 with the introduction of sermon No. 1, we attribute sermon number 2 to the year 415. Sermon number 14, in its subject and nature, can be confidently attributed generally to the years of the pre-Nestorian period of the life and work of the saint 102, and in this case it was a sermon of 426. The 25th Easter sermon was undoubtedly delivered after the Nestorian disputes; this is indicated by the doctrine of the divine dignity of the Persons of Jesus Christ and His Incarnation (ϒ', p. 912); and its comparatively smaller volume speaks of the later origin of this sermon. Consequently, it can rightfully be considered a sermon of 437. - Easter on April 2, which happened in 416, was the only one during the entire period of Cyril’s priesthood; Consequently, sermon number 4, denoting Easter on April 2, also belongs to this year 416. The next year, 417, Easter was April 22, but Easter fell on the same date in 428. Indeed, we have two sermons with the named date of Easter - these are No. 5 and No. 16. Since the first of them is exclusively directed against the Jews and represents the most harsh and decisive denunciations and accusations of their stiff-neckedness, misunderstanding and false interpretation of the law, etc., and from the life of Cyril it is known that the most powerful atrocities and intrigues of the Jews against Christians took place in the first years of Cyril's bishopric, i.e. 412 - 418, then we can safely consider sermon No. 5 to be the sermon of 417, and in this case sermon 16 should belong to the year 428. – Easter on April 7 occurred in 418, 429 and 440; how to distribute sermons (of which there are three), with a similar date? One of the sermons (No. 17) was undoubtedly preached in 429, when the wicked teaching of Nphstorius reached Egypt and the Alexandrian shepherd; in sermon No. 17 this new false teaching is exposed, although without mentioning the name of Nestorius; for the first time the Ever-Virgin Mary is called here (repeatedly) the Mother of God. Of the other two sermons, one, namely sermon 6, should be dated to the year 418, as containing the harshest denunciations of the Jews (also in its length), while the other, under sermon 28, should be dated to the year 440. – In 419, Easter fell on March 30, and Easter was the same date in 430. Of the two sermons celebrating Easter on the same date, one sermon, precisely number 7, should most naturally be attributed to the year 419, due to the similarity of its content with the content of the next sermon, number 8, dating back to the year 420 (since Easter in the 8th sermon on April 18 during the bishopric of Cyril was only in 420). Both sermon number 8 and sermon no. 7 treat in the same way about the internecine life of the inhabitants neighboring Alexandria, that is, about land and sea robbers, about murders, rebellions, etc. and about the same punishments (hunger and drought) sent by God for such an ungodly life. If so, then sermon number 18 should be dated to the year 430. – Next, we have 3 sermons with the date of Easter on April 3; Easter fell on this date in 421, 427 and 432. Sermon number 20 should undoubtedly be attributed to the last year, 432, since it very persistently defends the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God, i.e., that He became Flesh (John I, 14), that the Virgin Mary gave birth to the True God, etc., and that the wicked Amalek rebelled against this teaching, and was defeated by the fathers of the council. Decisive signs for determining the year of 2 other sermons, under no. 9 and 15, we do not have ; however, it can be noted that the dogmatic element in Cyril’s sermons becomes most noticeable from the second half of his preaching ministry; at first it stands out as exegetical-polemical against the Jews, polemical in general and morally accusatory); if so, then we can attribute sermon number 15 to the year 427, as it treats dogmatic issues to a very significant extent; Sermon 9, as exegetical, is attributed to the year 421. – Easter in the next year 422 fell on March 26, and it was celebrated on the same date in 433. Indeed, between the sermons we have two with the designation of Easter on March 26 - these are numbers 10 and 21. In sermon 21 we find a strong indication that it was preached in 433. It is known from history that Kirill was seriously and dangerously ill this year; so Paul of Emesa, who arrived in Alexandria this year (around December or January) to negotiate with Cyril regarding reconciliation with John of Aptiochi, had to wait a long time for the time when the saint could rise from his sickbed. 06 of this particular illness, serious and threatening the death of St. Kirill, preacher and speaks in 21 sermons; but if so, then Sermon 10 must belong to the year 422. – From two further sermons with the date of Easter on April 15. on what dates Easter fell in 423 and 434, one, number 22, we have reason to attribute to 434, since it contains clear traces of dogmatic teaching directed against Nestorian opinions and opinions generated by his heresy. By the way, in 433 Cyril was accused of claiming that he, together with the Appollinarians, recognized the flesh of Jesus Christ as brought from heaven; In view of this, Cyril uses such expressions in his sermon as (p. 868): “... born in the flesh from a woman...; receives from us an earthly mother, and gives us a heavenly Father”... etc. But in this case, another sermon from April 15 should belong to the year 423. - Further, we have 3 sermons (under nomframn - 13, 19 and 24; with the date of Easter on April 19; Easter fell on this date in 425, 431 and 436. Based on the terms and expressions contained in sermons 19 and 24 (p. 829: “... having received the body from the Holy Mother of God Mary...”, p. 889 – 893: “researchers and critics are not really allowed: for it is not safe to talk much about what has been handed down by faith alone. But this is not how it appears most of all to those devoted to research, who do not recognize anything as true and are proud of rotten syllogisms... for no one would take up arms against the Savior of you all, Christ, and rebel against His glory, reducing it to disgrace... (Christ the Son of God), like us, became a man, not so that only this last circumstance would be accepted, but the attention of those who cannot thoroughly think about His sacrament, but so that, and being with the body, he is recognized as the God of all. terms and expressions caused by the heretical teaching of Nestorius, whom Cyril condemned for his rational, critical attitude towards the dogmas of faith, one can safely attribute the named sermons (19 and 24) to the post-Nestorian period. We assign Sermon 19 to the year 431, and Sermon 24 to the year 436, although we can distribute them vice versa: 24 to 431, and 19 to 436. But if so, then sermon 3 with the date of Easter April 19 should be attributed to the year 425. – Finally, we have sermons with the following (various) Easter dates – March 31, March 27, April 16, March 23, April 12. Easter fell on the same dates in the following years: March 31 in 435, March 27 in 438, April 16 in 439, March 23 in 441, April 12 in 442. Hence, sermon 23 (with Easter on March 31) was preached in 435, sermon 26 (Easter on March 27) - in 438; sermon 27 (Easter April 16) - in 439; sermon 29 (Easter March 23) - in 441, sermon 30 (Easter April 12) - in 442. – Everything that has been said about the time of origin of the sermons can be presented in the following table: Exposition of the content of Easter sermons. General notes. The main subject of the Easter sermons is the idea of ​​the greatness of the Easter celebration. The greatness of the Easter festival is based on the immensity, exceeding every human mind and word, the work of saving people, or house-building, the remembered holiday of Easter. The Savior’s victory over sin, curse and death, which tyrannized over the human race, the destruction of the dominion of the devil over the world, the liberation of people from sin, death and the power of Satan and their reconciliation with God - this is the idea of ​​the Easter celebration, and at the same time the Easter sermons. But if the subject of the Easter holiday and the word is so great, lofty, and immense, then eo ipso a tremulous feeling of timidity and fear arises in the preacher: he cannot even with a quick flight of thought grasp the subject of the sermon before him. Therefore, his thought turns only to certain specific properties and features of the holiday of Christian holidays. Either it is directed at the reasons for the celebration, then at its ancient history, then at its essence, importance and meaning, then at our duties in view of both the holiday and the work of salvation remembered by it, then at the purpose of the celebration, at our deviation from the standard of life required by the cause of salvation, and so on. But being varied in many different ways, this thought is nevertheless always imbued with a common Easter idea. The greatness of Easter reminds Cyril of his duty to preach. Preaching about the holidays was commanded back in the Old Testament - through the mouths of Moses and the psalmist David. But this commandment applies even more to the ministry of the shepherd of Christ’s Church - it specifically refers to the holiday of Easter. In fact, what is the Old Testament - the law and the prophets? This is the image of the new, the shadow of future blessings; the end of the law and the prophets is Christ. Hence, every biblical story, every biblical person, Fact, its place, time, etc., are the essence of prototypes of New Testament persons, places and events. The times of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Egyptian slavery, Pharaoh, the invasion from Egypt, manna, Amalek, Samuel with his image of sacrifice, the reign of Saul, etc. and so on - all these are the essence of images of deeds and events remembered by the Easter festival - or better, “a touch”, shadows and multi-colored paints that paint the picture of the salvation of people.” But if "the fat of the Old Testament Scripture is covered with a shell of allegory," then how are the Jews mistaken, fixated on the letter of the Scripture? After all, they were convicted of blindness, insolence and stiff-neckedness - not only by Christ the Savior - but even in ancient times by the law and the prophets, who guided them to a deeper and more meaningful understanding of the Scriptures. But it is not only the Jews who persist in their ignorance. There are still the false wisdom of this world, trying to subjugate the free nature of man; but, with the coming of the Savior, she herself must, like Hagar, who submitted herself to the free hand, serve the truth of Christ, for this is why the Savior came to disperse the darkness of ignorance. Indeed, the human race was in a pitiful state before the coming of Christ. Death mocked people, sin tyrannized over them, and the devil extended his power over the whole of heaven. Everything was thrown down, they did not dare raise their heads, and deep darkness covered the earth. But then the Savior appeared in the world, like spring on the mountains - and everything changed - the breath of life, the fragrance of virtue was blowing everywhere; death is trampled upon, the devil is defeated; we are adopted as sons of God and receive a heavenly inheritance. But if human nature has been so immeasurably blessed by the deeds and generosity of the Savior, then how can we remain in the mud of vice and wickedness? Our duty is to wash away the abomination of sin and adorn ourselves with the most decent holy deeds of virtue, especially in view of the approach of Easter. This is why the only begotten Word of God was incarnate, to cleanse us from the filth of sin, to teach us the true knowledge of God and a virtuous life. This shows the life of the Savior and the deeds He did. – This is, in general terms, the content of Easter sermons. No matter how varied the author is in the order, connection and sequence of these thoughts, in general, in essence, Cyril’s sermons are similar to the sample of them presented by us. The only difference is that in different sermons Cyril pays special attention to one of the points we have indicated and especially illuminates it - but he illuminates, nevertheless, in connection with the main idea of ​​​​the Easter celebration and sermon. – Let’s move on to a consistent presentation of the content of the sermons in the most concise form possible. Easter sermon of 414 (under No. 1). “Throughout the entire universe, this is how St. begins his first Easter sermon. Cyril, the radiant splendor of the joyful and divine holiday is revealed, driving away everything dark and gloomy from the valiant idle lovers." Therefore, following the advice of the Apostle (Rom. 13:12-13) and blessed David (Ps. 94:1), we must sing a victorious song to Christ, who descended to earth for our sake and destroyed the thorn with the cross death. At the same time, most of all we must care about unanimity and unanimity in the confession of the faith of Christ and in piety. Vigilance and courage in piety are especially necessary now that the holiday of the bright Sun has risen, illuminating for us the path to all virtue. Only foolish Jews, mired in a sensual-formative cult, cannot come to the light of the Savior, and therefore they hear the terrible word of rejection from God. those who are circumcised in heart, that is, those who serve God in spirit, hear from God pardon and forgiveness of sins. Therefore, it is necessary for us, since the Savior has approached us, to put off the old man and be renewed into the new, restored in the image of the One who created him, it is necessary, according to the word of Jeremiah, to cleanse with divine fear, like fire, a soul overgrown with thorns and withered from wickedness, to accept the seed of the Savior and present to God the Jew, who is in secret, and the secret circumcision of all uncleanness from our hearts. Then we will be worthy to hear: “Celebrate, O Judas, your festivals”... (Nahum. 1:15). – a, pp. 401 – 404. Then followed by St. Kirill develops the idea of ​​the duty and duty of a church minister to preach, the difficulty of this and the heavy responsibility for negligence and carelessness in the work of preaching. Thus, the word of God curses those who do the work of the Lord with negligence. Therefore, all holy men trembled at this great mission and, despite their closeness to God, refused divine service (Jonah, Moses, Jeremiah). But God shames those who fear divine service and commands them to courageously go to the task assigned to them. Trembling with menacing divine words, and I, unworthy, says the preacher, having received the succession to the episcopal ministry after the glorious Bishop Theophilus, of necessity, now began to preach β᾿, r. 404–5. The preacher briefly points out, further, the essence of the Easter holiday and our responsibilities in view of this. Here, finally, he designates the special subject of his sermon. Having said that sinners should be cleansed in view of the holiday, while the righteous should rejoice and rejoice, the preacher talks about the appearance of the Savior into the world and the necessity of this appearance. People overwhelmed by wickedness and sins, according to the word of the psalmist, cried out for God to appear to them for help. But then He was far from people. Only by appearing in the flesh from a wife did the Savior shine for us. The purpose of this coming of the Savior was the destruction of death and sin and all enemy power, and the establishment on earth of all purity after the expulsion of ignorance. If the sun has risen, then it is necessary to destroy the moon, that is, the devil, as Scripture understands. Therefore, one must avoid the deeds of night and darkness, that is, free oneself from sins; and this is especially appropriate for this time. If at gymnastic competitions wrestlers work until they sweat for the most insignificant reward, then it is all the more necessary for true practitioners of piety to work, to whom God grants what neither eye has seen, nor ear has heard, etc. In view of the approaching holiday, this word or sermon invites believers to undertake such feats. An indication of the duty of preaching St. Cyril sees in God's command to Moses (Num. X, 1) to make two silver forged pipes. Trumpets mean church sermon (λό ϒ ος), which has a dual purpose: one calls for a correct understanding of divine dogmas, and the other teaches the rules of moral life. the silver of the trumpets indicates clarity and distinctness both in the knowledge of dogmas and in the selection of rules of activity, so let our word, says Cyril, attract you to the will of the legislator, sanctify the fast and proclaim celibacy - β᾿, p. 405 – 409. In the words of the apostle. The saint teaches James (1:27) what a truly Christian fast should consist of; - namely, in visiting the orphans and widows, and in keeping oneself clean from the defilements of the world. Nature itself and the words of the Apostle (Colossians 3:5) encourage us to do this: “put to death your evils that are on earth, fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil lust,” etc. Only by abstinence from food and complete non-eating it is still impossible to achieve the true grace of fasting, purity and holiness. Therefore, you need to tear out from your soul the germs of all those passions against which the medicine of fasting is established, that is, to mortify passions, make your mind free from them and avoid communication with the vicious. So, for a while we should abstain from food and exquisite meals, not to awaken the dormant sin in us with excessive pleasure. The fattened flesh conquers the spirit, and the flesh, exhausted by fasting, yields this victory to the spirit - ϒ, p. Let us reject, therefore, all luxury of food; “Let abstinence take root in us, abolishing all sin,” the preacher exhorts and proves the importance and fragrance of fasting with sacred examples: John the Baptist, who received a high praise from the Savior for fasting; Moses, whose abstinence prepared him to appear before the face of God Himself. Indeed, fasting is the image of all virtues, the likeness of angelic life, the source of chastity, the destruction of voluptuousness. Was it not through fasting that the three Jewish youths in Babylon, who ate the fruits of the earth instead of the royal meal, emerged unharmed from the fiery furnace and did not fear the king’s threats? Was it not fasting that saved the Ninevites from the formidable Divine wrath? and many other examples, the preacher teaches, could be cited as proof of the great benefits of fasting, but the matter is already obvious. The importance and beauty of fasting will be presented much more clearly when we compare it with its opposite: luxury in dishes, and show the result of the latter. During the wandering of the Jews in the desert, when Moses was on Mount Sinai, the Jews indulged in revelry of passions: “the people were gray, they say, eating and drinking, and arose to play,” that is, to commit fornication. But for this very thing, as the apostle teaches. Paul (1 Cor. 10:8-9), they died from snakes. And the example of manna speaks of the benefits of fasting. δ, r. 412–413. But let us suppose, they will object, that fasting is a good thing; however, it is very difficult and deadly for the body. This objection, Kirill answers, is filled with extreme absurdity: if we love the beautiful, care about how to make more useful acquisitions for ourselves, and in this sense do not consider fasting as something useless; then how do we want to avoid labor (i.e., abstinence), through which excellent profit is obtained? Just as cereals can not only grow, but also have beginnings of existence without a root; Likewise, the blissful state of spirit has its root in the feat of fasting and grows through it. Therefore, one of two things: either, by refusing to abstain, we will have to become like the dead, losing both our good name and eternal salvation; or, having loved fasting, we will receive as much benefit as a reward, as much harm would have happened otherwise. If we want to be prudent, we must prefer the best to such a benefit, the merits of which we are not sure of. Therefore, those people are the most reckless, who avoid the most beautiful deeds, completely harmless to their performers - they avoid because of some insignificant work. But let us remember at the same time, says Cyril, that those who refuse to endure little are subject to incomparably greater and more severe punishments, then doesn’t it follow that it is much more prudent to accept something that requires less trouble and brings the best results? What, in fact, is more burdensome or painful: fasting, or enduring eternal torment? If everyone agrees that it is incomparably worse to endure torture, then why do we not make the best choice when life itself offers either of the two? But there is no doubt that we can free ourselves from eternal torment only through labor (i.e., fasting); by refusing them, we doom ourselves to unquenchable fire. It is excellent to add to what has been said that pleasure is especially pleasant when we are temporarily deprived of or removed from the object of pleasure. Thus, the benefit of health becomes most obvious to those who fall into illness; People oppressed by poverty and lack of wealth are especially greedy for profit. What we do not have, we long to enjoy, and to put it briefly; due to the lack of pleasures there is a greater impulse towards them. The First Supreme Artist God arranged everything in this way, establishing, among other things, that the sun should appear after the night, and the night after it, so that, by alternately intervening one another, they would make the sweetness of their appearance most pleasant. The fundamental property of the human spirit is to use the present moderately; from satiety there is an impulse for something new and the pleasure pictured in thoughts. Everything said applies to fasting and luxury. Therefore, fasting is not useless in order to enjoy more pleasantly when time permits. δ᾿, r. 413 – 416. Let us love, Kirill again calls, fasting, the mother of all good and all spiritual joy. Let the pagans (actually the Greeks), who imagine themselves wise, and the godless Jews, who, although they know about fasting, act so shamefully that, perhaps, it would be better if they did not hear about it at all and did not fast, mock him. For them, fasting only in name indicates virtue, but in reality it serves as a reason for boasting. This is confirmed by the ignorant Pharisee who prayed so vainly before God (Luke 18:12). “What are you saying, crazy person, bragging about fasting,” asks Kirill? “Don’t you already notice such great audacity in your illness, pursuing such petty things with such care? Do you no longer feel your arrogance and boasting, you who strain out a mosquito and swallow a camel, as the Savior says (Matthew 23:24)? How is it that you, who consider yourself an expert in the law, do not know what is written in the latter: “Let the sincere praise you, and not your mouth; let a stranger praise you, and not your lips. (Proverbs 27:2). έ – r. 417. Indeed, the Jewish mind is filled with all uncleanness, and there is no such shameful vice in which they would not distinguish themselves; and this is held in high esteem by them. Having renounced the Divine law and the commandment given to them, they remain stubborn in their unbelief. – The sinner has a strong desire for what is temporarily useful, and chastity is unpleasant for the dissolute. Just as a drunk’s mind wanders senselessly and cannot rise to sound reasoning, so those betrayed by pleasure, having fallen into sin, as if into a deep ditch, and having pierced the chastity of the soul with unclean lusts, instill in themselves an incurable evil, being completely obsessed with this disease. – έ, r. 417. The most unreasonable Jews, the preacher continues, want to compete with their fathers in godlessness and excess of errors, and consider it a shame for themselves to give up primacy in sinful acts to them (the fathers). Therefore, God expresses to them through the prophet his righteous wrath. “0, who revealed their parents with their wickedness, exclaims St. father, and who discovered the identity of beliefs of those whose children you are considered! 0 who surpassed in their godlessness those who gave birth and with daring antics against the law proved their powerlessness (antics)! You alone succeeded in winning something in which it would have been more useful to be defeated. 0, having achieved a victory more shameful than any disgrace! The Judge of all, God, condemns you, saying: “Hardening his neck." He commands the prophet to weep for you and rejects you from Himself - for serving idols and offering sacrifices to demons in sacred groves and on every mountain. It happens that he who does not want salvation hates the ways of the latter and does not miss a single opportunity of pleasure. So it was with the Jews. But if they, despite the opportunity to receive salvation under the condition of repentance, still did not care about their own benefit and even did not value God’s love for mankind at all, then is it not fair that they are absolutely unworthy of regret? Instead of moving away from sin, and, consequently, forgiveness from God, they, on the contrary, add greater and greater errors to their previous ones, and therefore bring upon themselves grave punishments. It is not my idea, says Cyril, that the Jews are unworthy of God’s mercy: God Himself forbids the prophet (Jeremiah 7:16-18) to pray for them. If everything about them is full of sin, then it is also fair to reject them from God: for the measure of punishment must always correspond to the magnitude of the errors. If the Jews have withdrawn from God, then the most natural punishment for them is the deprivation of their priesthood and divine care. Happiness is a slippery and dangerous thing for fools. It is precisely when people who are not worthy of it achieve happiness that the opportunity for recklessness opens up. This is what happened to the Israelis. That is why the saints mourn the Jewish people, as they can no longer rebel (Am. 5, 1; Jer. 9, 17 - 18; Lamentations 4, 18 - 19). - ς, p. 420–424. So, when such extreme wickedness gripped the entire universe, when everything under the sun was in the power of the devil, when the Greeks fell into destructive polytheism, and the Jews, despising the commandments given to them, did inglorious things - when, thus, the land and sea were covered, as it were, with darkness and darkness of the night, then the Lord and Lord of all did not allow the best of his creatures, i.e., to perish. e, to man, Sends to us his only begotten Word, which alone could take away tyranny from the devil and free us from the evils that beset us. And so the Word, having taken on our likeness and become man, without losing in birth from the Holy One. The Virgin Mary neither being what she was before, nor receiving what was not in her, arranges our salvation. It remains, as Paul teaches, "yesterday and today, waiting for the same and forever," not having undergone through the incarnation of any transformation or some change in the Divinity, but remaining what it was and will be that forever. Having descended to earth, the Word betrays the arrogantly boasting devil (Is. 10:14) for the laughter and amusement of those who believe in the Lord. Having washed away from us into bane of rebirth is the sin that weighs on us. It (the Word) presented the entire universe as pure, showed us the path of salvation, revealed a clear knowledge of divine dogmas, placed us on an equal footing with the angels, heavenly citizens, united earthly things with heavenly things, etc. Meanwhile, the daring Jews did not want to confess Him as Savior and Lord. On the contrary, they seemed offended by the fact that It (the Word) appeared to benefit the human race, saving us from destruction, and they betrayed Him to death on the cross. And even the one hanging on the tree did not stop slandering and blaspheming. But the Savior, having suffered death for us, descends into hell and destroys the riches of the devil, leading his captives from there. Having risen from the dead, He becomes the firstfruits of the dead and frees human nature from the bonds of death. Having completed the economy of the incarnation, he ascends to heaven, presenting himself to the Father as the firstfruits of human nature, and as a pledge of this promise he gives us the Spirit. So, the preacher concludes, we confess the Lord as our benefactor and Savior; Let us appear as true children of God according to our deeds, and through them we will present a wonderful retribution to our Master; Let us cleanse ourselves from all mental and physical defilement by fasting in purity. – The date of the 40th and Easter of the given year follows. Sermon of 415 (under no. 2). In a conversation in 415, the preacher invites his listeners to rejoice in the Lord, for the subject of his word is the announcement of a festival in honor of the exploits of the Savior. Our All-Glorious Holiday, says Kirill, having completed its annual revolution, is already at the door and almost crosses the threshold of our hearts. Therefore, if the Jews, walking under the shadow and image, announced their holidays with the sound of trumpets, then it would be the height of recklessness on our part if we, in possession of the truth itself, began to doze and remain silent about our famous Holiday. Let, therefore, a loud sermon herald the approaching triumph. The events accomplished for our sake by the Savior are so great that even if we were silent, “the stones would cry out,” according to the word of the Savior. - a, p. 428. But the greatness of the subject about which the shepherd decides to speak plunges him into bewilderment and hesitation. He admits his powerlessness to adequately depict and praise the deeds of the Savior, and expects reproach from his listeners for laziness and cowardice. Against the latter, the preacher is justified, however, by the essence of his sermon. It is impossible to imagine anything higher than the deeds of the Savior. If so, then how can the divine not overshadow every human word after this? And indeed it is written: “The glory of God covers the word” (Proverbs 25:2). Confirmation of this can be seen in the blessed Moses, who admitted himself to be sluggish and incapable of preaching, Moses, undoubtedly worthy of all praise. Meanwhile, the economy of the Savior stands immeasurably higher than the Old Testament law; Is it surprising that every human word should be silent before this? At the same time, it should be noted, says the preacher, that our word does not mean to shine with eloquence and Attic elegance of language: it is a consequence of the necessity and duty of the Servant of the Church (1 Cor. 9:10) and, as such, should be accepted without criticism. – β᾿, r. 428 – 429. Without any intermediary thought, the preacher proceeds further to an allegorical explanation of the words of Moses: “keep the new month and keep the Passover to the Lord your God” (Deut. 16:1). In these words he sees an indication of the spring time of the Easter holiday, and therefore paints a picture of the coming spring time, in conclusion he says; “We did not make this description in vain, so that no one would think that we are wasting our time on such reasoning in vain, but in order to find out what is useful from the above commandment (i.e. Deut. 16:1). Thus, it was not in vain that the Law decreed for us to “observe the month of the new.” It is precisely necessary that human nature should contend with the green fields and be prosperous with the vegetation of piety... Let us see how appropriate is our explanation of the expression “keep the month of the new” in the sense of the time of the coming of the Savior... Thus, with the coming of the Savior, the evil demon (winter), which aroused, like a mass of winter rain, the absurd passions; dispersing the forces of unclean spirits (play on words; πνευ - wind and spirit) and the hated cloud of sin swept by, through the action of grace, light was established like spring. The germ of the Spirit given to us, like a thin marshmallow, encircles the souls of everyone, collecting incense from flower cups, but without damaging them. As in the spring, so with the coming of the Savior, everything was renewed. So the groom shows the bride the truest “month of new" (Song. 2, 10 - 12). God Himself, like skilled winegrowers in the spring, cuts off from us, with the coming of the Savior, thoughts that are dry and fruitless for piety, leaving only chaste thoughts. Therefore, we need, having accepted the grace of the Spirit, to be renewed to a better way of life, to be freed from sin, to wash ourselves from bodily filth. Let us love self-control and present a virtuous life to Christ who died for us - ϒ. Quoting the words of the Psalmist; “All who are around Him will bring gifts” (Ps. 75:12), the preacher, to show what the “gift” to God on our part should consist of, quotes words from the book of Leviticus (2 chapter 15 art.) and explains them in an extremely allegorical sense. The many grains of flour (which serves as a “gift”) included in the bread mean, according to Cyril, many virtues united in one common one - “piety", like a grain of flour in bread. The last virtue (“piety“) is offered by us as a sacrifice and gift to God. The oil poured on it is a symbol of joy, since it is inappropriate for those who are zealous for piety to grieve; and Lebanon means fragrance from deeds. Only in this case will the one who makes the sacrifice be worthy of praise, and his sacrifice will be accepted. Who will actually dare to appear with a gift to a noble person in the world, having soiled his body with dung? washing away the dirt of sin. This is also what the divine law suggests (Lev. 2:11-13), which prohibits the sacrifice of kvass and honey. God, who demands from us a new, non-evil life, cannot accept old evil (old kvass) into the stench of fragrance. And honey, as a symbol of the pleasure that accompanies every sin, is not accepted by God. Therefore, one must abandon the way of life, which consists in the pursuit of pleasures, and zealously exercise in pleasing God. The salt with which it is commanded to sprinkle the sacrifices is a symbol of prudence and prudence. Thus, the mind of God’s priests must be filled with fear (of God) and their word must be filled with grace. But if the words are not always deliberate, then let the mind of the pious be salted with salt, that is, throw away sin and not be corrupted in shameful pleasures. And Paul, with the words: “be strong, do not walk”, etc., deprives the weak, wavering mind of praise... The prophet also denounces this (Jer. 14, 10), meaning in the indicated place under the name “legs” an unstable certain state and fluctuations of thought - now towards evil, now towards good; whereby it follows that the legs should have a stable position, being attached to the ground. Thus the blessed Psalmist, who says: “Set my nose upon the stones,” denotes with these words a firm and unshakable way of life, “to abound in the work of the Lord,” as Paul says... People who sometimes depart from the divine law, sometimes clinging to it again, are like those who fell from a ship into the middle of the sea in their carelessness. They notice danger only when it has befallen them Meanwhile, one must not wait for danger, but proactively guard against it. Therefore, how foolish would be one who imitates such people in relation to the divine commandments, he who brings a life free from the stains of sin is so worthy of praise to God - But another place of the law speaks of this continuous holiness of life (Lev. 6, 8 - 10 - δ᾿, p. 433). 437. Although everyone is called to piety by the philanthropic word of God, not everyone is equally zealous about this. Some, not considering anything more honest than faith in God, offer themselves to the aroma of the Lord, as a complete and indivisible sacred sacrifice. The most appropriate name for such people is the name of the burnt offering, which occurs when someone offers himself entirely to God, not allowing himself to be deceitful for a single minute. The fire, which does not go out all night on the altar, means the constant presence of the Holy Spirit in us, for real life is called “night". But what is being considered will be even more clear from the words of God to Moses (Ex. 29, 38 - 40), commanding that not a single moment remain free from the veneration of God, precisely from the commandment that requires, both at the beginning and at the end of the day, to offer one the lamb, and the extreme points containing the middle, thus embracing all time. “The command to moisten the flour and its oil with the whole measure of Viva, and only the fourth part of Ina, means that those who sacrifice themselves to God in this life receive only part of the gift (wine) of joy (oil); but for that in the future life “eternal joy will rise upon their heads,” etc. - But if such strenuous feats throughout life seem difficult for human nature with its weakness, then there is another way of life, less perfect. It is represented in the morning and other actions of Moses during this time (Ex. 24, 4 - 6). - e, pp. 437 - 440. In the indicated place, when interpreting it allegorically, the preacher sees an image of an average life between perfect and imperfect. Morning here means awakening from sin and direction to the light of knowledge. The placement of the altar “under the mountain" indicates the far from perfect state of those remaining under the mountain, who are not yet able, like a mountain, to rise to the top of the perfect commandments. The embassy of young men, and not women, allegorically shows that making sacrifices to God is the work of a youthful and courageous, and not a sluggish and weak spirit. “Calf" (not a calf) speaks of the comparative imperfection of this sacrifice, or way of life. The shedding of one half of the blood into the chalice and the other on the altar indicates to us that we should not live only for ourselves, but also save part for the altar or God. “This, says the preacher, is this average and more mediocre life, not characterized by extreme severity and not turning into the unbridledness of sin.” – ζ᾿, r. 441 – 444. Having pointed out the different degrees of perfection in the way of life and praised the desire for the best of them, the preacher proceeds to depict the differences between people according to the gifts from God. “Just as faces are different, according to Solomon, from other faces, so are people’s talents. Everyone has the same nature of body and is made up of the same members, but not everyone has the same character. So it is with regard to the soul: with the same abilities we will find significant dissimilarity in the individual characteristics of life. This is precisely the idea, the preacher says, that is contained in the Gospel parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3-8). “The whole earth (soil) is called, the Holy Father explains, beautiful, but its fruitfulness is not the same. So the number 100 indicates those who are perfect in virtue; 60 - for fruits that are slightly behind the first ones, and 30 - for weak, but still deprived of vegetation fruits. In view of this difference between the virtuous, the Savior said: “Many are the dwellings of the Father.” The parable about the distribution of talents also speaks of the difference in the perfection and talents of people (Matthew 25:15). It shows that not everyone is equally receptive to piety. Nevertheless, God rewards the same praise both to the one who received five talents and to the one who received two talents, without at the same time becoming unjust, for kindness to the weaker does not diminish the honor of the best; it does not add anything to the former by taking away what is deserved from the latter, “What is lacking,” says Cyril, is filled by grace itself." And if anyone had an opinion not free from envy of the activities of others, then such, without noticing it, would accuse God of love for mankind. To the objection that the measure of goodness, as on a scale, should correspond to the actions of everyone, Cyril responds with the words of the Savior: “friend, I do not offend you" and etc. (Matthew 20: 13 – 14). – ζ, r. 444–445. After all that has been said, the preacher stirs up an unstable, wavering person to do good deeds. "The time has already come, he says, for you to rise to salvation and to direct your eye to the Sun of Truth. And the Lord, who loves mankind, will accept you, have mercy and again raise you to the path of piety. ζ, p. 445. An example confirming this is the story of Moses with his rod (Ex. 4:2-4), allegorically explained by Cyril. The rod of Moses is the fickle and fickle people of Judah: for it vegetated like a rod from the earth. When this people, indulging in passions, fell, as it were, from the hands of the legislator, they turned out to be a poisonous serpent, bitter in sin, strong in anger. But when the legislator took it again, it became beautiful. So, it is obvious from this example how God again and again restores and transforms those who are stagnant in carelessness. It is no less obvious that those who are stuck in sins must turn to God. God did not leave a single moment in which he did not call everyone to salvation and did not bring the stubborn and stiff-necked to reason. – η᾿, r. 445 – 448. Despite this, however, almost all people, as the Psalmist says (13:3), turned away to sin, fell under the tyranny and slavery of the devil and were covered in thick darkness of ignorance. Therefore, the saints prayed for the sending down to earth of light that would save souls. This Light appeared in the person of the Word of God, incarnate from the Holy Virgin, who endured the cross for your sake, trampled upon the bonds of death and revealed to us the source of all joy, descended into hell and resurrected His church on the 3rd day. – ή, r. 448–449. Therefore, beloved, the saint calls, let us celebrate the holiday with great triumph, let us fast upon ourselves, love one another, show hospitality and love to the poor, let us not forget the prisoners, as we ourselves are prisoners, and the sufferers, as we ourselves are still in the body - the date of Easter of this year. Sermon of 416 (no. 4). Having pointed out the approach of the holy holiday, preceded by a long time of deeds of patience and any other virtue, the preacher reminds his flock of their moral duty in view of this (i.e. holiday) - to undertake meritorious works, and of their duty - to deliver a church sermon, bearing in mind the moral benefit of the listeners, and not their delight in the flow of eloquence. With his words, he even intends to sober up fans of oratory from this. – r. 452. It is all the more natural and necessary for a minister of the Church to preach a sermon about the upcoming brilliant celebration, since the prophets rejoiced about the exploits of the Savior, remembered by your Feast, and loudly, like a trumpet, announced them (Isa. 58, 1; - 124 - 40, 9). Therefore, the preacher boldly calls on his flock (actually the young men) to throw off the old man, to adorn themselves with fasting and every other virtue. The time has come, he says, for exploits and spiritual warfare against forces hostile to us, that is, evil spirits. Since bodily strength and skill have no meaning against these enemies, one must put on the full armor of God (EPH. 6:11, 14). If at gymnastic competitions (a description of their customs and practices follows) wrestlers, because of some insignificant reward, waste their strength to the last possible opportunity; then what excuse can we have for idleness and inaction if incomparably better crowns await us for insignificant deeds? none. Even in gymnastic competitions, athletes work not for material benefits, but for fame and praise; Wouldn’t it be completely reckless, therefore, for us to indulge in laziness at a time when greater and higher rewards await us, and victory is almost already assured, thanks to help from God? And in other respects, the lists of piety has an incomparable advantage over gymnastic competitions. Only those who possess physical strength and art can participate in the latter; here even the powerless and inexperienced can demand a fighter: for near them is God, who knows the art of the stage. In the competitions of real life, only the winner receives sympathy, praise, glory and monetary reward; the defeated one is despised; The lists of piety are governed by different laws. God rejoices as much for those who are courageous as he grieves for the vanquished; he restores the fallen, who, by the sentence of local laws, are deprived of all glory and attention. - (β᾿, pp. 453 - 457. So it is prudent, the preacher concludes, to achieve suffering, because victory and reward follow it. And this victory is not so difficult and heavy as to seem unattainable. This is confirmed by the divine Paul (1 Cor. 10:13) and Christ Himself (Luke 10:19), who has given us the power to step on without any harm to ourselves the snake, and the scorpion, and all the power of the enemy - Christ, who gives you this power, or power through the influence of the Holy Spirit and the saving cross, which the Greeks mock. In relation to the study of truth, they are, according to Cyril, nothing more than great donkeys, hanging their ears with pleasant melodic singing and at the same time not understanding the art of the artist one iota. Mocking those whom they should compete with, and turning away from those whom they should imitate in every possible way, they suffer from the pitiful disease of polytheism, which is all the more inexcusable for them when their own poets talk about monotheism (Hom. ίλ. β᾿, V, 204). But at the present time, says the preacher, it is much more appropriate to turn his word against the Jews. – u’, r. 460. Tempted by the cross of our Savior Christ, the Jews, according to Cyril’s remark, act incomparably more recklessly than the Greeks, since the latter did not read the Scriptures, and these had the law as a guide to piety. Therefore, with greater right they should be included in the ranks of pagans and atheists than the Greeks. This is confirmed by the history of the Jewish nation from the very beginning of its existence. The founder of the Jewish people, Abraham, a Chaldean by birth and a pagan by upbringing (“he himself moved in ignorance and was numbered with idolaters”) is called by God to true knowledge of God. God plucks it up “like a dear root from a thorn, and replants it in godliness. And so the forefather, having been reborn through the knowledge of God into another person, became what he is now, differing from those who lived before him only in the desire to serve God. Consequently, if turning to piety and the power of serving God reveals a person to be reborn, then deviation from them (piety and serving God) plunges such a person into that former ancient state, i.e., idolatry. Now, writing off our speech from the face of the righteous and turning it to the descendants of this root, we will clearly see that the Jews withdrew from all piety through unbelief in Christ." The preacher is perplexed even at the countless deviations of the Jews from God and their wickedness, and expresses doubts about the ability to cope with the transfer of them ( wickedness) even to the most capable person, moreover, sophisticated and wise with experience in this matter. However, he himself decides to bring at least a few guilts of the Jews to show that they have deviated from God - δ, p. 460– -464. Fulfilling his intention, the preacher cites passages of Scripture (Hosea 9, 16 - 17; Amos 5, 21 - 23; Jeremiah 3, 16, etc.), convicting the Jews of extreme wickedness, deviating from the faith and pleasing God. Therefore, God himself, indignant at their wickedness, rejects them from Himself, abolishes the Old Testament cult of the law and prophets, as the cult of the image and shadow, and replaces it with service in spirit and truth (Jeremiah 3:16). This is confirmed by the current circumstances. Indeed, “we do not have a gilded ark with the books of Moses lying in it,” says Cyril; but every believer in Christ serves for this as a church of the Spirit, perceiving in its entirety, so to speak, the source of sanctification." But to say this does not mean to blame Moses and the law. The law itself is holy and righteous (Rom. 7:12); but it acted only until the fulfillment of time, not representing true service. Therefore, God promised through one of the prophets to replace it with a better ministry (Jer. 31:31). This is exactly what he means. the work of the Apostle Paul (Heb. 8, 13; 7; 7, 19).-e, pp. 464–465. In view of what has been said, the preacher denounces the unbelief of the Jews. “How long will you disbelieve, O Jew? “When will you listen to the voice of the saints,” he asks? To the Jewish objection that one should not refer to the Apostle Paul as a Christian to denounce the Jews, he replies that this subterfuge is invalid, that Paul himself repeatedly testifies to his belonging to the Jewish nation. But besides Paul’s testimony, one can find many proofs that the Old Testament cult must be destroyed and replaced by a new one - “why, for example, do you despise the divine cult in order to free yourself from fatherly customs, and do not pay attention to what was held in the greatest honor by them,” asks Cyril? “Where is your church now? Where are the altars and sacrifices in it? Where are the priestly and Levitical orders?... Why aren’t you yourself? do you offer the sacrifices required by the law? “If you answer that you neglect this of your own free will,” Kirill continues, then you are already accused of breaking the law... and I do not need any other evidence against you. If you admit that you are bound in this case by the bonds of some necessity, then even here you will not escape the accusation of ignorance and unbelief. Who can really have such power as to bind with the bonds of necessity that which has God as its patron (i.e. the law)? And so, it remains to be assumed that divine wrath fell on the sons of Israel “... This time of your shame and rejection was announced by the prophets (Hos. 3:4; Ezek. 3:7; Isa. 48:4; 65:2, etc.), “although you feign ignorance,” notes Cyril. If any of the Jews begins to prove that this is not so in their books, then such shamelessness and insolence will be exposed by the very outcome of the matter, known to everyone they meet. ς – r. 465 – 468. Having said that the Jews, instead of cruelty and unbelief, should, on the contrary, rejoice at what was announced through the prophet (Zechariah 2:10), the preacher proceeds to reveal the mystery of the economy of human salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Therefore, the author depicts the universality of sin and the tyranny of the devil over the entire sunflower; God's care for people and methods of healing and saving people in the Old Testament (i.e., “the cries of the prophets about the descent of the Son of God to earth”). The descent to earth of the only begotten Word of God and a brief Christological teaching about Him. The accomplishment of salvation of people (i.e., the history of the accomplishment of salvation in its main moments) by the Son of God. The fruits of salvation and our moral obligation in mind this, as in the previous sermon. Determination for the upcoming Easter, - ς, p. 469–472. Sermon of 417 (no. 5). Having shown the reasonableness of the saying that “there is a time for every thing” (Eccl. 3:1), the preacher reminds that the present time is a time of triumph. And since the Divine Scripture commands to blow the trumpet on the blessed day of the Holiday, then let the Easter festival, which reveals to us the true new moon and new year, be heralded by a church sermon, as by the trumpet of the Church. The sound of this trumpet invites us not to battle with our enemies, but to sweet joy in the Lord. “To rejoice, as everyone will agree, is worthy and righteous precisely about the rise of Christ from the dead, about which the preacher intends to talk with the listeners. Moreover, he briefly reveals the fruits of death on the cross, descent into hell and the resurrection of the Savior to show the extraordinary solemnity of the holiday. α ’ – p. 472 – 473. The last circumstance (the extreme solemnity of the holiday) gives the preacher a reason to compare the upcoming spiritual festival with a nationwide civil solemn meeting, the description of which he then presents. But despite the general similarity of Christian and national celebrations, in essence there is and should be a great difference between them. There, during public meetings, those present are decorated with precious and generally expensive clothes and flowers; Christ should be our best clothing (Rom. 13:14); there they fill their bellies with luxurious and expensive dishes, here they enjoy a spiritual feast; there they disperse the darkness and illuminate their path with Torches, but with us there is a light not made by hands - Christ Himself, who said: “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). The prophet Isaiah proclaimed this light (60:1). And indeed the Savior, having appeared in the world, dispersed the gloomy darkness of ignorance spread over us by the devil, who until now had blinded our thoughts, “lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ should shine upon us.” β - R', pp. 473-476. Only the Jews did not recognize the Word of God made man for our sake, which is why even in the Old Testament they were strongly rebuked by the prophets for rejecting the Word of the Lord. But they also rejected the only begotten Word of God, which became the cornerstone - they rejected it, despite the fact that from the prophetic books (scrolls) they could easily have been educated in this mystery of piety and carefully learned it from the Mosaic writings. They turned out to be worse than even the pagans in their negligence about their salvation, boasting only of their scribes (knowledge of the law), and not trying to penetrate into what was hidden under the image and shadow. And these images contain the clearest description of the Savior’s condescension. Therefore, if you wish, says the preacher, we will deal with the most ancient of the whole string of images - namely, the life of blessed Abraham, the story of the conception and birth of Isaac. “Notice here, Jew,” exclaims the author, how in the very, so to speak, root of birth, the sacrament of our Savior is carved, as on copper,” – β᾿, pp. 476–477. This is followed by a lengthy account of the story of Abraham. Sarah and Hagar, conveyed by the author in the order and sequence of the biblical story. The main attention here is drawn to the initial barrenness of Sarah, her request to her husband to have a son of Abraham from Hagar, the birth of Ishmael, and, finally, the resolution of Sarah herself from barrenness by the birth of Isaac. Having conveyed this entire story, the author explains it first in accordance with the interpretation of this story by the ap. Paul (Galat. 4, 22 – 26), in the sense of 2 Testaments: Sinai (subordinate) and Christian or free. “But, beloved,” says the preacher, although I am in awe of the greatness of this allegory, I nevertheless believe that given the vastness of the meanings of divine Scripture, it is necessary to seek out and use other interpretations for the correct understanding of what is said. Therefore, the preacher offers a new allegorical interpretation of this story. ϒ. r. 480 – 481. According to this interpretation, Abraham represents an ancient time or age, Sarah represents human nature; Her female gender signifies her ability to give birth, and her old age signifies antiquity. For human nature is very ancient and capable of generation; she was created capable and dominion over everything. But for a long time, without having a blood and God-given child, she rejoiced in strangers and illegitimate children, that is, the children of a gloomy Egyptian woman, for Egypt takes advantage of darkness. “Who do we mean by darkness,” asks Kiryald? and answers: “of course, the false wisdom of this world, from which the ancient sages were born, called by the Savior the sons of the age, precisely as they were brought up into slavery and served false gods. When time grew old and came to an end, the Son of promise, the true Heir, our Lord Jesus Christ, was given to the free and hitherto idle nature. The maid is now expelled along with the children: Where is the wise man? where is the scribe? where is the council of this century? Has not God put on the wisdom of this world?, as Paul says. However, a certain divine mercy is also granted to the slave and her children: she is returned from the path and has received the command to submit to the power of the free." So the birth of the promised Isaac "means nothing more than the birth of Christ after the fulfillment of times." “Let no one be tempted, the author notes, that not all the details of the biblical story are adjusted to the truth. In general, the images of allegories always agree with the signified. A righteous person, for example, is often likened to a sheep for the meekness characteristic of this animal; but to say that he wears horns or steps with hooves would be extreme absurdity” δ .р. 481 – 485. “So,” the preacher continues, “for no other reason did God give the promise to Abraham about Isaac than for the sake of the descent of our Savior to earth, to which, of course, the fulfillment of the blessing boils down.” In view of this, Cyril conveys in detail the words of the promise (Gen. 17, 16 - 19), paying main attention to the words: “and he (i.e., the child of Abraham) will become nations, and kings of the tongues will come from him.” Meanwhile, it is known that Isaac, the child of Abraham, (through Jacob and Judah) was the ancestor of the tribe of Judah alone. The same thing is shown by Jeremiah's prophecy about the new coming covenant of God with the house of Israel and Judah. In what way, after this, was the promise fulfilled - “and it will be in the nations"? This was fulfilled in Christ, who was pictured in Isaac, the preacher answers. Christ became the Father of many languages, drawing everyone to Himself through faith. This is precisely confirmed by the wisest Paul (Gal. 3, 5 - 6, 8 - 10) and the blessed Baptist ( Matt. 3, 8 - 9), who means by stones unfeeling pagans at heart, but through faith they became joint heirs with Isaac. So, there is no doubt that Isaac, born of Abraham, served as the image of our Lord Jesus Christ himself, as Blessed Paul repeatedly affirms (Gal. 3:15-16; 27-29). – If, even after these numerous and convincing proofs, the preacher turns his speech to the Jews, the Jew is not convinced of the truth of the image, the content in the story under consideration, then this is no longer my fault, but the unbelief of the Jew. However, imitating skilled doctors in the treatment of stubborn diseases, we will also offer a cure for the unbelief and foolishness of the Jew. “Let him again see our Lord Jesus Christ depicted in Isaac from ancient times. - e, r. 485 – 489. This time St. Cyril dwells on God’s command to Abraham to offer Isaac as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:2). If we consider the history and face of Isaac without relation to the Christ they depict, that is, deny their representative significance, then this command of God will seem like something cruel and inhuman. Therefore, what is its true meaning? “Since, says the author, the promise given by God about Isaac was destined to be fulfilled in no other way than through Christ and His cross, God, by the command given to Abraham, shows, on the one hand, how great a grace for salvation there is in the tradition of the death of his own son, and on the other, so that Abraham, through his own grief, would understand how difficult it would be for the heavenly Father at the sight of his beloved Son ascended into the super-earthly element. The Savior Himself spoke about this. (John 3, 16). ς – p. 489 – 492. Having then conveyed the story of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. 22:3-13), St. Cyril applies it in all its details to the economy of the Savior and His death on the cross. Thus, the elevation of the youth by the father means that it was not human will and power, but the will of the Father that raised Jesus Christ to the cross. The meekness and obedience of the child to his father indicate humility and obedience to the Father of the Savior (Phil. 2: 6 – 9). Arriving at the place of sacrifice on the 3rd day means the appearance of the Savior in the last time, after the fulfillment of times. A pair of servants are two peoples who accompanied Christ to his saving passion. Abraham's seeing the place of the burnt offering from afar is God the Father's foreknowledge of His own Son. The words of Abraham to the servants - “stay under the mountain with the donkey" - indicate someone who has just believed in Christ, but has not yet received baptism, and is still overwhelmed by recklessness and ignorance - the properties of a donkey. In the words of Abraham to the servants ... “and having bowed, we will return" St. Cyril sees Abraham's foreknowledge of the true outcome of the commandment of the burnt offering of Isaac. The wood for the burnt offering, laid by Abraham on Isaac, means the Savior bearing (or taking upon Himself) our sins. The arrangement of the altar by the patriarch shows that the cross and the tree seemed so only to human eyes; “but in the eyes of the Heavenly Father - this is true - a great and high altar for the salvation of the world, smoking with a sacred and most pure sacrifice." And the ascension of Isaac on firewood and the slaughter in place of his ram very clearly show that the Word of God ascended to the cross and was in the sacred church; the Lord suffered, although He is impassive by nature, - precisely the knife was stabbed not into Isaac, - the image of the Word of the Father, but into the ram, - that is, the church from the Holy Virgin, although the Savior Himself went to the slaughter. “He appropriates the suffering to Himself because the body was His, and not anyone else.” – ζ. r. 492 – 496. After this, the preacher briefly conveys and reveals the sacrament of salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ, the fruits of this sacrament and their meaning. In conclusion, as a conclusion from the previous one, a moral exhortation is made to the listeners and a list of the virtues themselves is proposed, with which believers should adorn themselves in view of the holiday, ζ, ή. R. 497 – Date of Easter. Sermon of 418 (no. 6). Having pointed out the approach of the Holy Feast of Easter and the duty it places on the faithful - to courageously and joyfully glorify the Lord, who has blessed the human race, who has destroyed the most shameful yoke of sin, etc., to glorify with virtues and good deeds - the preacher strives to fulfill his duty in relation to the Feast, the duty of church sermon, and outlines the subject or theme of it with the words of the Psalmist (Ps. 118, 126: time to create the Lord) and in the most honest way with the words of the prophet Isaiah (27, 5): let us make peace for Him, let us make those who pass by. Disclosure of the meaning and meaning of these words, i.e., what properties and where this world should be, etc., constitutes the further development of the sermon. – a, r. 500. In the members of our body, says Kirill in the words of the apostle. Paul (Rom. 7:24), there is an innate law that wars against the desires of the spirit, counters our best aspirations, and draws us to sin. Therefore, as long as this law rules us, it makes us most hostile to God and delays the peace of the just. But being suppressed and weakened by the aspirations of the spirit and piety, he releases for us a quick path of love for God and peace with Him. Therefore, by striving for good, let the law of the flesh, i.e., fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil lust, etc. (Col. 3:5), be put to death, let it take flight, and let the law of God rule over us. Otherwise, that is, by succumbing to carnal lusts, we will become like vineyards without fences and guards, and we will become food available for lusts. The means to curb this enemy (the law of the flesh) is fasting, the mother of holiness, and severe enslavement of the body. In this case, God himself will be our helper. Then we will create a praiseworthy peace with God. β. r. 501 – 504 But this peace with God is even more necessary for that multitude of people who have just sprouted in the gardens (vertograd) of the Church and therefore, like an irrigating source, need the art of teachers (church). These are the “coming” of whom Isaiah speaks, that is, those who flow into the Church of Christ from the pagans, from error to the true knowledge of God and in general to virtue and a way of life suitable for a person, I mean (says Cyril) a reasonable person, created in the image of the Creator. - Meanwhile, the pagans, possessed by the devil and foolish from idolatry obsessions, reward divine reverence for wood and stone (Jer. 2:27), and only by their bodily appearance can they be classified as rational animals, but in their actions they are more foolish. This is how the Most High God and the Lord Himself characterizes them (Wis. 15:10). And what could really be more senseless than worshiping wood and stone as God? From this crude Form of pagan worship and worldview, the preacher moves further to higher (philosophical) forms of idolatry, which have the highest of creatures as the object of worship. To this end, he strongly denounces philosophers and astronomers who revere the firmament that embraces the sunflower, and who engage in stargazing and measuring the currents of the sun and moon. They present four elements as the beginning of all things: fire, water, air and earth. but instead of reaching from the beauty of these creations to the giver of this beauty - God, they give complete and complete worship to the creations. they are likened to people who, having seen a beautifully constructed house or ship, lavish their surprise and praise not on the artist and architect of the house or ship, but on the constructed things themselves, being unable to rise in thought above the visible... Such is the foolish wisdom of this world, which is violence with God (1 Cor. 3:19). They include among the gods even those who do not have a human form, attributing to them the members of a pig and a dog. – δ ’, r. 505 – 508. The darkness of ignorance covering the Greeks is deep, continues Cyril. They deprive a person of his best quality, do not recognize and do not want to recognize him as a free being, so that they attribute the vileness of everyone’s actions not to his own will, but to outside pressure. In their opinion, the life of each person is controlled by some kind of “fate”, “birth”, assigning to some those delights of life that everyone would rightfully want to strive for, and to others what everyone would turn away from. “So, a person does nothing and does not even strive for anything of his own free will, is not endowed with any ability - neither good nor bad - for activity; on the contrary, he is directed towards this or that, being bound, as it were, by some kind of bonds or chains of necessity; “And thus he who has received power over everything is no different from dumb animals.” Those who have such opinions, says the preacher, are like someone who, having placed a coachman on a chariot and given it to him at his complete disposal, would at the same time entrust the control of the horses to another person. Would it be possible to demand from someone who was deprived of freedom of action (i.e., the coachman) an answer for something that depends on the free will of the doer, for example, if he fell from the chariot? But in order to further expose the absurdity of such Fatalism 103, Cyril turns to a source authoritative for the Greeks, namely mythology, and from there he borrows examples that contradict Fatalistic views 104. The Greek books mention the torment of Tantalus, Tityus, Ixion and Sisyphus, and it is stated that they all suffer due retribution for their crimes: Tantalus and Tityus for intemperance, Ixion and Sisyphus on charges of various crimes. Having described the image of the torment of each of these persons, Cyril reasons: and so, if we now admit with the fatalists that man and everyone in general depend on fate, it already means that those offenses for which Tantalus and co. are punished belong not to them, but to “fate” that led them to these crimes, and in this case all the shame and eternal torment should lie on “fate” and “birth”; Tantalus and co. should be are freed from them, but if Tantalus and his companions are punished fairly, then in this case a person should already be freed from the “necessity” to exclude the influence of “fate” in order for Tantalus and others to appear guilty. “For if we, the author sneers at the Greeks, are considered very far from the laws of justice, when it is not the one who sinned that is punished, but instead the innocent one, then who will not agree that there is no one in the world more unfortunate than the Greeks. gods? And these rulers and judges of everything, to whose competence all the justice of the world is entrusted, cannot pronounce judgment in truth?!! Aren't our judges much better than them, who judge everyone according to his deeds; those who have an impeccable life are rewarded with honors, while those tainted by crimes are branded with contempt and punished according to the magnitude of each person’s offense? At least that’s what your and your chosen men think about it, my dear. But listen to what our sages also said: the foolishness of a man destroys his ways, but he makes God guilty in his heart (Proverbs 19:3)... So, man himself is responsible for his own misdeeds, he himself, in one way or another, controls the circumstances and his actions, and not fate and birth.” – δ᾿, pp. 508 – 512. The real culprit of such a destructive worldview is the evil one, the devil, who seduced man, captured him into slavery and stifled the free nature in him. He made this last blindness over man out of an insidious calculation - to keep man forever in the slavery of sin and under his tyranny: for man is innate in the free desire for the best, and with it the possibility of returning to a better state. This is why the devil deceives a person: “It is not you yourself,” he says, that is the reason for the impossibility of doing the best, and God will not put such a meaning into your ability; He has placed you under the yoke of necessity.” But it is clear that a person, placing the outcome of his actions on “fate” and asserting that everything depends on the inevitable force of “birth,” will count and hope that he will not suffer any punishment, no matter what sins he has shrouded himself in. “So, let those deceived by this hear, says Cyril at the conclusion of his denunciations against the pagans, what we said at the beginning: let us make peace with God; let enmity be silent, let battle and war cease. Let us stretch out our hands to the Savior and by faith ask Him for peace!“ – e’, pp. 512 – 13. With the same appeal, in the spirit of love, the preacher addresses the Jews, who oppose the faith of Christ to believe in the “shadow,” “image,” and “letter.” When will you separate your mind from the shadow of the law, Cyril asks the Jew? What time will show us you more sane? When will you present to the King of all God service in the spirit? Sitting over the letter of Scripture, you have become stupefied. Therefore, let’s talk a little about what is especially revered among you, and you “will understand from here that you have been stuck in error for a long time.” ς – pp. 513 – 16. Of the three practices of the Old Testament cult that are especially important for a Jew (circumcision, the Sabbath, and the slaughter of sacrifices), St. Cyril dwells primarily on circumcision according to the flesh. In his opinion, “to subject to circumcision the shameful parts of the body, which nature uses for birth, would be worthy of laughter, if only this very action (circumcision) did not contain a compelling reason. Considered in itself, circumcision would rightly lead one to blame the art of the Creator, who burdened the human body with some extra additions, which, meanwhile, is not noticed in the organization of even animals. Therefore, has not God already, having created man in his image, determined that he should appear as the most shameful among the dumb, if the latter have nothing, but there is something faulty in him? This means we must conclude that circumcision signified something good and beautiful. – ζ, r. 516–517. There is, the preacher says, in us a mind, a principle that moves towards everything beautiful and virtuous. But oblivion weighs over him - the food of all uncleanness. It overshadows in us the consciousness of the duty to strive for the best activity, turns our thoughts to earthly things instead of spiritual things. Therefore, just as water is needed to extinguish a fire, so is the memory of goodness necessary to destroy the disasters that arise from oblivion. And as long as a person’s mind is darkened by the evil of oblivion and cannot be revealed in goodness (although by nature it is capable of producing the beautiful), then a person is considered unclean and shameful by God. But having overcome oblivion and crossed the evil that comes from it, we cleanse our minds of depravity, and having been transformed into innocent infancy, we present ourselves with boldness to God. “At the same time, says Kirill, we will not bring ourselves, just as a newborn baby does not bring himself to God. But Christ, who regenerated us through faith, will lead us to Him and present us on the 8th day, that is, after Sabbathkeeping according to the law, for this is the time of the appearance of our Savior. For this reason, we call the 8th day the Lord’s day, as it forever concluded the time of the law and opened for us the beginning of the Lord’s times, in which everything became new. – This is how we must understand the meaning of carnal circumcision, performed on the 8th day after birth, after the newborn is placed before the face of God. This is the meaning given to circumcision by St. Paul (Rom. 2, 28, 29; Philip .3, 2, 3), understanding by it “circumcision in the spirit,” “circumcision of the heart from the passions.” So, to be proud of the circumcision of the flesh, if only this one is thought of, would be absurd, but if it (carnal circumcision) represents the image of circumcision in the spirit and means purification of the heart, then it can rightly be called the most beautiful symbol. So The prophets also understood circumcision when they said (Jeremiah 4:3-4): “Be circumcised to God, and circumcise your hardness of heart, men of Judah.” So, therefore, although someone circumcises himself according to the flesh, he does not circumcise himself for God; 19; Rom. 2, 25 – 27). – And circumcision has another meaning, namely, as the seal of faith, “even in uncircumcision,” given to the forefather Abraham, “as if he were the father of many nations.” After believing, even before Abraham was circumcised and justified by faith, circumcision became for him the seal of this circumstance. ή, r. 517 – 521. Then the author conveys the decree of the law on the Sabbath, that on this day one must leave work and bodily labor, not leave Jerusalem and not go on a long journey; prepare food for consumption not on this day, but the day before; do not carry heavy objects and do not burden yourself with burdens. - Having confirmed these decrees about the rest of the Sabbath with the words of the prophet Jeremiah, St. Cyril notes: “if every prudent person agrees that the fatness of Scripture is covered with a mysterious meaning, then let him seek this contemplated meaning.” Otherwise, he will become like the scribes whom the Savior denounced (Matthew 23:13). θ – pp. 521 - 524. Indeed, the rest of the Sabbath, if you do not give it an allegorical meaning, is something illegal and absurd. Why is it only man, and not every other creature, who is constrained by the law of the Sabbath rest? Thus the sun continues its usual course without ceasing; the earth with its various plants and grains is not made barren for the sake of the Sabbath. The springs do not stop delivering nutritious moisture on Saturday... Everything, in a word, is continuously happening according to the laws of movement and life laid down by the Creator. Why such a stop in human activity? Would you say - for worship? But why, in this case, did not God establish this law for everyone? And why on this day are prohibited actions that are completely innocent at other times, such as carrying heavy objects, cooking, etc. - prohibited even under the threat of death? After all, among those prohibited on the Sabbath, there is not a single action that would entail an accusation of sin if performed at another time? What should be avoided as a sin that entails punishment (“thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery,” etc.) is prohibited at all other times, and not just on Saturday. It is clear, therefore, that what is prohibited by the law of the Sabbath rest does not in itself contain any sin, and therefore is not prohibited in itself, but because it serves as an image of something else. – ί , r. 524 – 25. There are two such reasons. “The first is that through the Sabbath rest the thought of the Divine was instilled in the Israelites and a means was offered to know the artistic and all-creating Nature, that is, God, so that they would not be slaves, in their ignorance, before the visible elements." The reason for establishing his law in this way was the slavery of the Jews in Egypt, which had erased from their memory both paternal and national traditions and the knowledge of the true God, and instead, which drew them into idolatry - into serving the sun, heaven and earth, the moon and stars. Therefore, God, bringing them out of Egypt to the land of promise, demanded that they unconditionally free themselves from the burden (through the “rest of the Sabbath”) of the Egyptian error, that is, from the worship of the sun and other creatures. But not by the order of God alone should they recognize the creation of the sky, the sun, the moon. and stars (i.e., his former gods), God commands them (Jews) to conform to the Creator, i.e. so that, resting on the Sabbath day, they would understand the reason for this holiday, and imitating the peace of the Creator who has rested from his work, thereby silently confessing that everything was created, that there is one Creator and Maker of everything. - “On another basis” the rest of the Sabbath and the cessation of affairs mean the rest of the saints in heaven at the end of time, when they, freed from labor and having wiped off the sweat of their exploits, having entered the highest city - heavenly Jerusalem, will spend all their time there in peace and bliss. They will feed their souls with those joys of this life, which they put aside here for the day of salvation - this is the food of the Sabbath. The prohibition to burden oneself with burdens and burdens on the Sabbath means that after the rising from the dead, according to the law of the Sabbath of the highest city, no burden of sin will befall us, no longer will the evil deceiver seduce us into lawlessness. In parallel with their stay on Saturday inside the gates of Jerusalem, the righteous of the highest city, having entered the ranks of saints and members of the church of the firstborn, will never leave blissful peace, but will remain there forever. – And that indeed, Cyril continues, the Sabbath means rest for the saints, this is confirmed by Paul (Heb. 4:1-2), who by “rest” does not mean the entry of the Israelis into the land of promise under Joshua, but the future blessedness of the righteous (Heb. 4:8-9; 10-11). “Listen and understand, Jew, what is being said here, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, possessing complete knowledge of the law, a Jew by Jew and a Pharisee by law,” concludes Cyril. – ία᾿, pp. 525 – 529. With such a general error of the Greeks and Jews, the Lord of all could no longer be content with His servants and slaves to accomplish our salvation, but contrasted Himself with the devil who enslaved us, became a man, having taken birth from the Holy Virgin, and with his teaching and deeds frees our nature from sin. But the devil did not sleep in his rage. He instills in the most criminal Jews the idea of ​​putting to death Life itself and the Giver of Life. However, I was wrong in my calculation. The Savior, having tasted death, bound the daring tyrant with insoluble bonds, like a wild beast, and freed the captives of hell. Having risen on the third day and commanded his disciples to teach all nations and lead them to saving baptism (Matthew 28:19), He ascended to heaven and presented Himself to the Father as a kind of firstfruits from us. In view of this, the preacher offers moral exhortations to his flock with a list of virtues with which they should adorn themselves in view of the upcoming Feast, the time of which is further determined. – ίβ᾿, r. 529 – 533. Sermon of 419 (no. 7). Having delighted the listeners with the joyful news of the coming of the holy and longed-for holiday, the preacher speaks of his duty in view of this - to give a sermon, which duty he is fulfilling at this moment. The theme for his sermon he takes the apostle’s advice to “cleanse yourself from all filthiness“... (2 Cor. 7:1) and “put to death our evils that are in the earth“... (Col. 3:5). The means for this, in imitation of doctors who prescribe annual cleansing and abstinence from food to their patients, we will undertake, says the preacher, fasting as a spiritual medicine that has a cleansing effect on the soul. Fasting is the root of all virtue, the path to purity, a valiant warrior against perverse sensual lusts and the law of the flesh with its pleasures. But at the same time, selfless courage and determination are also needed to work for goodness and virtue - to work until the sweat of your brow. Without this courageous courage, not a single athlete would have won a victory over an opponent in gymnastics competitions. Speaking dejectedly and cowardly, even before the dust of the lists rises, he is already defeated by his fear. In the same way, one who is diligent and courageous in his chosen life should rather rejoice in his labors than be burdened by them. Feats of struggle are his wealth and food. But the lazy and possessed by the disease of inertia trembles at the mere hearing, “that wealth is acquired through labor.” Therefore, “take courage, cries the Holy Father, and let our hearts be strengthened.” Our Savior Himself says (Matthew 10:38) that whoever wants to follow Him must be free from all laziness and cowardice. Just as a child with his small and tender legs is not able to run after a fleet-footed youth, so a weak and pampered mind (spirit) is unable to follow in the footsteps of Christ. – With this feat of fasting and severe deeds and suffering, the courageous warrior of Christ, the Apostle Paul, crowned himself, proudly pointing to himself: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ (1 Cor. 4:16). He (Paul) counted all suffering as nothing, just to appear as a true disciple of Christ (Acts 21:13). And who did he take as his allies in the fight against the body? – Fasting (2 Cor. 6, 5, 11, –27:, 1 Cor. 9, 27). Thanks to him, this Apostle subordinated the lusts that rebelled in the members of our body to the wills of the spirit. The Apostle of Christ commands you to do this too, - a, p. 536 – 540. And not only in relation to fasting, the Apostle Paul serves as a leader and example for us. He leads us to the basic principle of goodness - love for neighbors, which the Lord considers to be the surest criterion of a believer’s closeness to Him (John 13:35). Without love for God and neighbors, according to the teachings of St. Paul (1 Cor. 12:31; 13:1-3), the whole string of other virtues, although desirable in a Christian, turns out to be colorless. But this apostle shows not only the power and price of love, but also the very image of its discovery and spirit (1 Cor. 13:4-8). And how easy is the path of this virtue! Meanwhile, this is the path of the saints, leading to the highest city, its artist and creator is God. Having strayed from it and embarked on a perverted path of life, we will fall to the bottom of hell. Therefore, let us imitate the love, meekness and humility of the Lord (Matthew 11:29), let us not imitate the rudeness of wild animals, inflamed by mutual hatred. After all, even dumb animals, despite the fact that they are devoid of reason, try to live together in societies, help and protect each other and share food. Only a person who has received power over all animals and has reason does not notice his fall into extreme madness, considers unbridled temper as courage, does not honor the Creator, etc. Meanwhile, there is one culprit of our entire race, Adam, and one God created us - not for mutual enmity and discord, but for a common life imbued with love. - a, r. 540 – 544. But this fundamental principle of public Christian life is not noticed among the flock of the Saint of Alexandria. Rumors reach me, says the shepherd, that Egyptian village youths, recklessly wasting the strength and health of their youth, arm their hand with the sword of cruelty, attack the border and neighboring inhabitants, carry out outrageous riots and robberies and then indulge in carousing and squandering other people's funds. Therefore, the preacher addresses them with a word of exhortation - to stop such liberties, not to irritate the Almighty King and Lord, throw out of your hand the sword defiled with blood, and extinguish in yourself the illegal passion for someone else's, cut the knot of enmity and tame anger. Warning the unbridled from imitating Cain with the punishments suffered by the latter, the preacher reveals to them the gloomy and joyless state of mind of the lawbreaker. Meanwhile, how pure and calm the soul of the righteous is! But besides this, traces of God’s wrath for these crimes are visible on the Egyptians themselves. This is a terrible drought and infertility in the fields and gardens. That, the anticipation of which so sweetly filled the souls of farmers and winegrowers, now turned into the cause of inconsolable crying. And all this because the Egyptians themselves soaked the fertile soil with human blood and raised a fratricidal sword against each other. Thus, what was predicted about the Jews from ancient times (Amos 5:16 - 17; Lamentations 1:11; 4, 4 - 5, etc.) is now coming true over the Egyptians: a terrible famine is devastating their land. Therefore, let us repent of our crimes, the Shepherd calls, let us fall to the merciful God, and He, who has shown so much mercy towards people (Mic. 7, 18; Jeremiah 14, 20 - 21), will undoubtedly send us His mercy, as can be seen from the words of the prophet (Joel 2, 19 - 26). And no one should doubt the mercy of God; one should only turn to God with repentance. This is already noticeable in the circumstances of the Egyptians themselves. "To those who are still in sin, says Cyril, God already grants an abundance of ordinary means of subsistence. Even before your tears have appeared, God has already appeared compassionate. If He does not refuse to pour out mercy to those who have not yet cried, then will He not cheerfully rejoice those who repent?" Therefore, the preacher invites his flock to repentance, fasting and prayer before God with the words of Joel (2, 15 - 17) - β᾿, p. 544 – 549. Confidence in divine mercy can already be found in the sacrament of your salvation, accomplished by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Thus, when everyone has turned to evil and given themselves over to sin, the only begotten Word of God, consubstantial and co-equal with the Father, descends to earth, becomes truly man, and bears the sins on his body on the tree in order to destroy the life of the handwriting of our sins and put to death the sinful and pleasures that tyrannize over us. The unfortunate Jews who nailed the Savior to the cross were deceived in their calculations. The devil was defeated and imprisoned in hell. The Savior rose for three days, ascended to heaven and united the earthly with the heavenly. In view of this, a brief moral exhortation to listeners and flocks, The date of Easter. – β ’, r. 549–52. Sermon of 420 (no. 8). The preacher sets the onset of the holy holiday of Easter, according to the inspiration of the Word of God (Joel 2:1), as the occasion for his usual church word, which contains an invitation to perform divine exploits, and in view of the approaching daylight, drive away sleep from your eyes and try to avoid the affairs of the night (Rom. 8:12-13). With examples of sailors (merchants) setting out to sea with the onset of spring, ripe vineyards inviting to cheerful hymns, and yellowed ears of cornfields awaiting the reapers, the preacher proves the suitability for everything useful and the desirability of the coming spring time. But if this is so, shouldn’t believers also be adorned with virtues in this pious time? If at any time deviation from piety serves as the beginning of corruption and should not be allowed at all, then even more so at the present time. From the example of athletes, although they always practice their art, but nevertheless show special strength and dexterity in competitions, it is clear that those brought up in the divine law, although they should always exercise themselves in piety, must nevertheless demonstrate special prudence, courage and courage at a given time. While maintaining a firm and unchanging confession of faith in Christ, believers must beware of those who disguise themselves in the image of piety and reject the power of it, that is, heretics and their empty word debates and women's fables; to keep in the recesses of your heart dogmas pleasing to God, witnessing them with deeds of piety. – a’, r. 553 – 56. Although the path leading to exploits of virtue has many branches, however, the preacher further says, “in one thing lies for us the whole totality of what is wrong,” namely, in the commandment of love for one’s neighbor (Matthew 19:19), in which (love), according to the teaching of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 13:8-10), lies the fulfillment of the entire law. And indeed, each of the virtues is imbued with love, and vice versa: where there is no love, there is no virtue, there is a crime. Such are: an offender, a hater, an adulterer (“Is it not out of love, you say, that he, having relations with other people’s wives, makes their husbands blush and be ashamed”?!!), a murderer, a thief, a robber, etc. Consequently, the law that instructs us in every virtue has its fulfillment in love - Having then cited the teaching of St. Paul on love (1 Cor. 13, 4 – 8), St. Cyril makes a brief explanation of the words: “he is long-suffering of love,” that is, he endures for a long time, courageously endures all insults and, most importantly, quickly suppresses the anger that flares up against the offender, thereby disarming the offender himself and giving the lover himself a good name. But the main thing in love is that it “does not seek its own.” And "does not seek his own" is one who does not care about his personal interests, who is completely devoted to the benefit of the public. An excellent example of this is provided by the apostles, who, despite the Sanhedrin forbidding them from preaching about Christ, and therefore, despite the personal dangers that threatened them, preached to the people... It was they who did not seek their own, but cared about the benefit of others. - Moreover: the Savior, raising us to the pinnacle of meekness and brotherly love, not only commands us to turn away from what belongs to others, but not even to resist or be angry if they take something of ours (Luke 6:30 – β᾿, p. 557–60). Meanwhile, robbers entrenched at crossroads and pirates casting their nets of robbery along river streams attack with fury their innocent neighbors. Calling themselves Christians, these robbers violate the law of love and become like ferocious beasts. How are you not blushing, Kirill asks the murderer, offending what was for you the means and support of life? You made yourself a murderer and watered the earth with innocent blood! How else do you touch shiny iron, which, instead of its proper use, you turn to murder? How then do you demand that the fields be irrigated for you by God every year with moisture? The word of God is terrible against such criminals (Isa. 1:15; 1 Dominion 2:30), which places the source of such wickedness in rapture in goods and the complete abundance of everything (Hos. 13:6); and hence luxury, pride and oblivion of God. Therefore, one cannot help but cry for such people along with the prophet (Mic. 7:23). Even Egyptian farmers are waging internecine strife. That is why the wrath of God struck the Egyptian land with a terrible disaster: the abundant and bold harvest, which delighted and amused the farmer with the bright hopes of the farmer, was beaten and overwhelmed with hail.ϒ, p. 561 – 565. What is the cause of all these misfortunes? – “Our own paths and undertakings (Jeremiah 4:18), our grave crimes,” answers Kirill. Therefore, it is necessary to turn with repentance to the merciful God (Joel 3:10, etc.), and He will have mercy on those who have sinned (Heb. 4:15). The guarantee of God's mercy is the sacrament of our Savior, who did not refuse to suffer for us. At the same time, the preacher briefly conveys the history of the economy. Then, pointing out that the Jews did not accept the “image of the Savior’s economy,” rebelled against Him and rejected His divine dignity, the preacher proceeds to present the so-called Christological doctrine - presented in a polemical tone against the Jews and, in all likelihood, the Arians or Eunomians... - Here Cyril proves, first of all, the divine dignity of Jesus Christ, not as accepted by Him from the outside, from another, as, for example, we, but as essentially abiding in Him (άξιόματι). Thus, Christ is God by nature and a sharer of the properties (or “property”) of Him who gave birth; the power to do everything is received not from another person, but as the Lord of hosts - from the essence of God and the Father. And having become a man, He did not cease to be God; the Apostle Paul clearly teaches this. “Christ yesterday and today, likewise and forever” (Heb. 13, 8) - does not divide Emmanuel into two sons, and this constant and eternal (διαπαντώς) identity (τό ώσαύτως) is attributed not only to the naked Word from God the Father, but to the Word made man, since he attributes it to Jesus Christ, and Jesus - from “the salvation of the people,” but Christ is from the anointing for our sake (i.e., they have names). – δ, pp. 565 – 68. Further, in a polemical spirit, the preacher refutes the following objection of a heretic or Jew: “If Christ was born in the last times, then how could He always be, even when He was not yet born?” According to Cyril, this objection only confirms the above words of Paul. “Why did this man (Paul) filled with the Holy Spirit attribute to the church born in recent times (i.e., the Word of God) that which belongs to the ever-living and truly existing Word, if not because he considered it godless and was horrified to divide into two the one and only true Son even after the incarnation? That which is actually and by nature inherent in the Word even before the incarnation, the same he assimilates again to the one who appeared in the flesh (i.e., the Word), accepting no other in what appeared in the flesh because of the flesh, but inviolably retaining for him the dignity of the Divinity even when It became human. “The Savior Himself teaches the same about Himself (John 3, 12, 13; 6, 62, 63) “under the name of the Son of Man.” “For how then does He speak thus about the descent of the Son of man from heaven and about the fact that He will ascend to where He was before? So you see how He, having bound (united) the Word with the undivided and indivisible unity of ineffable union (with the flesh), demands that we confess one Christ both before the flesh and in the flesh. For this reason, He says that the flesh, although it is earthly in nature, descended from above and from heaven, and also that it will ascend to heaven, where it was before. For what is inherent in Himself, He assimilates to His own flesh, as being no other from it, since He entered into unity with it according to the economy." - “But for the sake of the highest unity, we will not destroy the difference in natures, that is, the fact that according to His own nature He is the radiance of the Father, and according to another, further, He is flesh from the earth, or a perfect man, as the Holy Evangelist says: The Word made flesh (John 1, 14), – é, pag. 568 – 69. In the words of Athanasius the Great, the preacher begins to expound, further, the doctrine of one Person in Jesus Christ, that is, one Christ with two walks in two natures, noting that we should not be confused by the ineffability of the image of the combination of natures: “the depth of the sacrament can be perceived by faith.” But if the flesh of the Savior was His own church, then it follows that, having become a man, Christ (that is, together with the flesh) receives worship from the holy angels. This is what it says (Heb. 1.6) “when he brings the firstborn into the universe, he says: and let all the angels of God worship him.” But let those who recognize two Christs, or two sons, now answer: how is it fitting for the Word, who is from God the Father, to be called firstborn even before becoming man? How is He the only begotten if he is the firstborn? If anyone begins to divide the one Son into two and attribute to one of them the Word First-Begotten, and to the other the Only Begotten, then the entire Holy Scripture, which affirms both about Christ in the proper sense, will be opposed to this. So, when “firstborn", then this is a man “in many brethren", but when “Only Begotten" - then this word is from God and the Father. But there is one Christ, and knowing this, Paul combines (Col. 1: 14 - 18) with the perfections inherent in God the properties of human nature, calling one and the same Christ both the image of the Father and the firstborn of creation, etc. Meanwhile, those who separate two sons in Christ must admit or acknowledge, for example, that the work of creation can be fitting for man (which, however, belongs to God alone), but dying is not alien to God. - So, God Tin dwelt in his own church, in a body received from a woman, having a rational soul; 11), and the evangelists and apostles confess Him to be God and Lord (1 Cor. 2:12; Rom. 9:11; John 20:29; Matt. 16:13, 17:19). “Let us also follow this faith,” says Cyril. – Having then briefly outlined the history and mystery of the economy of human salvation, and having given a decent moral exhortation (of a general nature) to his listeners and flock, the preacher indicates the time of Easter celebration and ends the sermon. – ς, r. 572 – 577. Sermon of 421 (no. 9). The preacher compares the onset of Easter to the sunrise. As in the latter case, everything is illuminated and enlivened; so, when announcing the divine holiday, pious and zealous souls are especially enlightened. Therefore, one imbued with such zeal is called in the Word of God a “war horse" (Job 39:25). And since a holy man is aroused to divine exploits and God-loving behavior not by a fighting trumpet, but by a word telling about the beautiful, therefore the preacher, by virtue of his duty (Am. 3:2), speaks with a church sermon, the subject of which is indicated by the prophet Joel (1, 14): “sanctify the fast, preach celibacy”, etc. Without following the advice of the prophet, it is not possible to receive the lot of heavenly blessing. And the ministers of the church are obliged, according to the word of the Lord Himself, to help Christians in their exploits (properly: holy warriors in arms and battle) and guide them in this sacred celebration (Num. 10, 9 – 10). 577 – 580. An allegorical interpretation of the use of trumpets (before battles and holidays) in the Old Testament as applied to New Testament events - in the sense of a teaching word that awakens fighters against the lust of the flesh to chaste courage, and still peaceful idle lovers to glorify the Savior. – β, r. 580 – 581. A description of the coming spring in living and poetic features and images, and an allegorical interpretation of it in the sense of mental spring, that is, the time of the rise of the Savior and the general revival (of people) and renewal of life, when the Lord declared us, who were spiritual due to prevailing sin, spiritual through piety. Then the preacher makes a distinction between the two, that is, between the spiritual and the spiritual: the former give the dishonest and the evil one the name of worthy veneration and vice versa; the spiritual ones know one good thing and strive for it, profess faith in God and are flaming with love for Him, - β᾿, p. 581 – 585. Further, the preacher speaks about the weak and not yet strengthened in faith and divine love children of the church, about the morally sick, in need of special care, wavering between faith in the true God and idolatry. The responsibility of the shepherd of the church is to take care of them and admonish them with a word of edification. “How can we, asks St. Cyril, leaving what is sick, recklessly go to that which is not affected by any disease?” Cyril takes proof of the abomination of serving false gods from the example of a warrior who was captured by the barbarians, who forgot about his fatherland and morals there and slavishly submitted to the new king. - ϒ, pp. 585 - 588. Application of the above example of the captive to the history of the human race to explain the origin of polytheism and slavery to sin and the devil. For this purpose, the preacher paints a picture of the first days of humanity, and the gradual drift of people into idolatry and polytheism, and submission to the tyranny of the devil. Primordial man did not know the cult of polytheism; Only since the time of Cain has the said disease of evil intensified. And so we gradually moved away from the union of love with God and stained ourselves with abominations. The devil darkened the eye of our soul and, having bound man with foreign pagan cults, made the one who was free bound and chained captives. But the end of the matter did not work out as planned. For the Only Begotten Word of God shone upon us and freed us from the bonds of the devil. – δ ’, r. 589. From here, from the proposed story, the preacher concludes that the knowledge of the one and true God has been embedded in human nature since ancient times; The disease of polytheism is a natural phenomenon and the fruit of perversity. And although we have been redeemed and delivered by Christ from this shameful and vile polytheism, among Christians there are still those who waver between this polytheism and the true knowledge of God; these are double-believers and generally “double-minded” hypocrites, against whom the preacher further directs his speech. Already among the Greek poets the vice of “double-mindedness” and “hypocrisy” is strongly exposed (Pl. Hom. IX, Art. 112, etc.). In fact, “why do you,” Kirill asks the hypocrite, so jealously hide in darkness what you value so highly in your mind? Just by the passionate desire to “hide" you don’t prove the shamefulness of what you are hiding? This is how one hides, venerable sir, what others rightly condemn, and what would be ridiculed if left to freedom of speech."... But if, the preacher continues, Christ is confessed by everyone and everywhere unanimously, then isn’t the one who hesitates and doubts the justice of this subject to a grave accusation? God himself threateningly denounced the double-mindedness of the Jews (Is. 29:13). But “is it not, in fact, that those who worship God in vain are those who are far from Him in thought, who serve the creature more than the Creator, who only talk about Christian things and only with the brilliance of words play out the role of believers in God”? But if a person can still be deceived by such hypocrisy and double-mindedness, then how can such a person hide from an angry God? Neither brilliance, nor luxury, nor the fabulous wealth of Croesus will help here. The wrath and enormity of God’s wrath poured out on the dual-believer idolater is visible in the example of the Jews who were ungodly fornication (Jer. 3:6): it is God who rejects them from Himself and dooms them to complete destruction (Jer. 7:29), in the image of which he orders the prophet to cut the hair on his head. The Lord even forbids the prophet to pray for them (Jer. II, 14) and says that He would refuse the request - to pray for the Jewish people - even to greater prophets than Jeremiah (Jeremiah 15, 1). – έ, r. 589 – 596. Denouncing open idolatry, or double faith (in Cyril “double-mindedness”), the preacher then proceeds to refute the objection - “that God sends such a severe punishment, perhaps, only for open polytheism and idolatry; But for secret things, if at the same time a confession of God is made in words, no punishment is sent?” 0 You cannot speak to God; “hidden” or “open,” the objector Cyril responds to this, for “all are naked and declared before His eyes” (Heb. 4:13). And therefore, secret dual faith or idolatry is punished with no less wrath or wrath of God. We also find an example of this in the history of the Israeli people, who invented entire galaxies of idols and hid them in shady and gloomy places and even in the vestibules of the Jerusalem temple (Ezek. 8, 7 - 11). But God, who sees all that is hidden, as it is written (Ezek. 8, 12; Psalm 13, 1; 93, 7, 8, 9), through the prophet pronounces a terrible punishment for this wickedness - namely, wholesale extermination, “destruction by the roots.” - e, pp. 595 - 600. But God, who so terribly punishes those guilty of the vice of dual faith, marks with the seal of supreme grace the one who completely worships Him and recognizes Him alone as God. For this reason, the preacher teaches, we must kindle in our hearts, first of all, pure and immaculate faith in God, as the Apostle teaches (Heb. 4:5). With sfm, the preacher briefly outlines the doctrine of the trinity of Persons in God, their consubstantiality and equality and mutual relationship. Having pure and undefiled faith in our hearts, we must, secondly, be adorned with good works, for faith without works is dead (James 2:26). But works without faith have no meaning (2 Tim. 2:5). Likewise, in order for an athlete to distinguish himself on the lists, he must also get close to the chairman of the lists before the competition. So, let us conform our lives to the divine law, and eradicate from our souls unclean pleasures and shameful lusts. Then we will be accepted by God and admitted to the holy celebration of Easter. – ς᾿, r. 600 – 601. Having mentioned Easter, the preacher sets out the law of its celebration (Ex. 12, 43 - 44), namely, he considers who could not be allowed to eat it according to the law of Moses; these are foreigners, strangers, mercenaries, slaves and purchased ones (the latter could participate if they were circumcised). According to the allegorical explanation of these names as applied to the New Testament Easter, foreigners mean completely alien to the faith of Christ; strangers are those who have not yet been strengthened in the faith, i.e., still inclined to return to their side (unbelief), a mercenary is one who sells to show love for God, that is, one who hypocritically approaches the sacraments in order to win a good opinion from those who see his hypocritical actions. Slaves and bought people have permission to start eating only after circumcision. This means that we were once slaves of evil demons, that is, of our own passions, but were redeemed by Christ, Who redeemed us and bought us with His own blood. Therefore, we must, having circumcised and cut off, as it were, the shame of ancient slavery, ascend to a free and God-loving state and thus unite with the Redeemer Christ. In conclusion, the preacher briefly outlines the fulfillment and essence of the sacrament of atonement and offers an equally brief moral edification to the listeners. – ς, r. 601 – 605. Sermon 422 (at number 10). Having expressed sacred greetings to his flock (Rom. 1:7) in view of the approach of the beloved and longed-for time of St. holiday, proclaimed back in the Old Testament, the preacher, in the words of the Psalmist (Ps. 95: 11 - 12), characterizes the essence of what Christ accomplished and is remembered by the holiday of Easter. Thus “Christ judged the world in righteousness.” Meanwhile, the Savior Himself said about Himself (John 3:17): “God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but through Him the world would be saved.” But if “to judge,” or pronounce condemnation, and “to save” are two different and even contradictory things; and at the same time, truth cannot tell lies; then in what sense or in what way did Christ judge the universe, or the world? For the reconciliation of both named places and exegetical clarification of the words of the Psalmist (95, 11 - 12), St. Cyril paints in detail the history and picture of the devil’s dominion over people and over the entire universe (Isa. 14:14; 10:14). This daring tyrant was judged by God’s decree (Isa. 14:20-21) by Christ, who freed the inhabitants of the heavenly realms from the bonds of sin. And that it was really necessary to demand the tyrant to be judged for the fact that he kept us in sin, and that the Savior really condemned him and declared us free from him and from sin, this is clearly visible - the first from the Psalms of David (Ps. 34:23), and the second from the words of the Lord Himself (John 12:31 - 32): “now is judgment for this world”... So, obviously, there is no contradiction in the words “judge” and “save” for Christ truly condemned the beast defiled by the blood (Satan) and at the same time justified (saved) us with his own blood (1 Tim. 2:5). In connection with what has been said, the preacher further reveals the necessity of the appearance of the God-man for this purpose; to save our nature damaged by sin, and briefly depicts the mystery of our salvation (Luke 2:14; Eph. 2:14), the consequence of which (i.e. salvation) is that the image of the divine nature is imprinted on our souls (Galat. 4:19). This reflection of Christ in you is accomplished through blameless faith and evangelical activity. An excellent means for this is fasting, the source of all purity, and abstinence. But for the perfection of holiness and the full greatness of virtue, bodily fasting alone is not enough; it is necessary that purity in action and holiness in life be combined with it. Having been redeemed by Christ and freed from the devil, we can no longer work for two masters, but must love Christ completely, which we will achieve through strict observance of the commandments (John 14:15), unceasing piety, through the mortification of carnal passions and in general feats of abstinence (Gal. 5:24; 29; Col. 3:5). The fruit of good labors is glorious, but it is achieved only through a persistent and difficult struggle with the flesh and Satan, whose confrontation is terrible, as it is allegorically (1 Cor. 10-11) and depicted in the Old Testament Scriptures. - a, r. 609 – 613. The preacher further presents a gloomy picture of the Egyptian slavery of the Jews, the treachery of Pharaoh and his insistence on Moses' request to release the Israelites into the desert to celebrate the holiday. At the same time, "shaving" and "plinth-making" are a symbol of slavery to the devil and images of the impurity of earthly affairs, having abandoned which and having left the country and power of the tyrant (devil), only one can begin to serve God. In all the actions and words of Pharaoh, St. Cyril sees the cunning and cunning of Satan, practiced by him in relation to his subordinates. Having cited, for example, the words Pharaoh: “go and devour a sacrifice to your God in this land,” Cyril notes: “you see how, despite the fact that the divine law removes us from sin, Satan still rebels and opposes..., does not want to let us out completely from our own land (power), but persuades us to split into two: to please both him and the Lord of all.” But as Moses, in response to the above words of Pharaoh, said that so. “It’s impossible,” and so the Savior confirmed; “Nobody can work for two masters.” “Therefore, says the preacher, we must come to God with a noble and courageous spirit, come completely and strictly.” His image is depicted in the story of the lamb slain in Egypt. So, if the Israelites had not slain a lamb in Egypt in the image of Christ, had not anointed themselves with its blood and had not eaten unleavened bread, they would never have been freed from Egyptian slavery. In the same way, we will avoid the onslaughts of earthly passions in no other way than through communication with Christ, who has the power to destroy the power of Pharaoh, that is, Satan. On this occasion, the preacher offers a brief Christological teaching and characterizes the sacrament of salvation in its main point. – But sin, mortified by Christ, can be mortified in us only when we infuse Christ himself into our souls, through faith and the communication of the Spirit, making us conformable to Christ, according to the property of sanctification. Having mentioned the Son and St. Spirit, Cyril, apparently, shows in what sense the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, namely in relation (ὃ σον) to the identity of the essence and activity (energy) characteristic of God. Therefore, the Savior is called Truth (John 14:6) and the Holy Spirit (John 15:26), or, as in the apostle. Paul (2 Cor. 3, 17), ό δέ K ύριος τό P νεύμα έστιν ού δέ τό P νεύμα K υρίσυ έλευθερία . “You see,” Cyril notes in his last words, how skillfully the occultist has preserved what is characteristic of the Son and the Holy Spirit: both identity in essence and the conceivability of separateness, that is, I mean in relation to existence, which is attributed to each and actually exists; for the Spirit is naturally conceived of as the Spirit, and not the Son, or better yet, the Spirit of the Son, forming and transforming into Himself that in which it took part, so that God and the Father, seeing in us the properties of His own Birth, would love us as children and whiten us with the finest honors.” According to the identity of the thought just expressed with the teaching of St. Paul on predestination (Rom. 8:29–30), the preacher interprets in this sense the command of Moses (Exod. 13:2; 11–12) to dedicate the firstborn to God. Moses, says the preacher, could not communicate sanctification, which is characteristic of God alone; therefore, what Moses indicated was a type. Thus, it is commanded that all firstborn be sanctified; and these are precisely “all the saints in whom the image of the holy and firstborn, that is, Christ, shines.” – β᾿, r. 613 – 20. The just-mentioned transcendental beauty of the divine essence, the preacher continues, is imprinted on our souls only when we become participants in the divine nature, that is, those who have received the Spirit of the Father and the Son; and this transformation and rebirth, which occurs through sanctification, is reflected precisely in actions and energetic power towards virtue. For this reason, Kirill thinks, God commands that not every firstborn child, but only the male sex, be sanctified. Why is the female sex not sanctified, even if she were the firstborn? Because, answers St. father, that in the masculine and courageous field one sees, as it were, a certain particle of what is seen in the divine nature - this is masculinity and steadfastness. The female sex is not dedicated to God because it, being weak, easily yielding and overcome, cowardly and timid, etc., is recognized as incapable (άπειρηχός) of warfare and courage. An example of this is offered in the narrative of Moses. Thus, Pharaoh, who serves as the image of the devil in divine Scripture, armed himself against the growth of the Jewish race; The bloodsucker issued a law - only the female sex should be left alive, while the male sex should be drowned in rivers and swamps immediately after birth. What idea can an insightful person derive from this? – The one that the devil delights in weak, indecisive and feminine minds. Therefore, the evil one agrees to the continuation (ίέναι) of the increase of the female sex, without fear of ever being defeated by him. The male sex, on the contrary, considers it warlike and inaccessible to defeat and, knowing that it will be completely elusive to him if, having been brought up in the teaching of the truth, he ascends to the measure of the age of Christ and grows into a perfect man, he kills him before maturity. What from here? What is revered by God is hated by the devil, and vice versa: what the devil fears takes its rightful place with God. Therefore, for example, God commands Moses (Num. 1, 23) rewrite only the male sex and, moreover, already mature; the female sex, even in full girlhood, is not included in the enumeration. – ϒ, r. 620 – 624. Having pointed again to the starting point of his reasoning, that is, the thought of “conformity with Christ®,” the preacher continues; "just as the male sex is taken as a symbol of courage, making us conformable to Christ; so a woman is taken as a model of corruption and weakness of spirit, easily falling into pleasure. Thus, according to the image of the prophet Zechariah (5:5 - 9), in the image of a woman there is lawlessness; and the souls that try to raise this woman to the heights - lawlessness, are female beings who have the wings of a hoopoe (Slavic “vdoda”), i.e. greedy for unclean actions and prone to carnality, for the hoopoe bird is unclean, especially voracious for worms (by which allegorically refers to the passions of man) and excrement. Every soul devoted to sin and pleasure is seen to be like this, feeding only on the teachings of the (church) truth, and by truth we mean Christ. further, a moral exhortation to the listeners, so that they are incorruptible and conformable to the body of the glory of Christ - δ, р- 624 - 625. And that what is truly corruptible by nature (over time) will change into something different from what it is now, that is, into the incorruptible, this can be seen from the words of God to Moses and Aaron (Exodus 16:32-33) - about the “lot of manna.” Allegorically explaining this passage of Scripture, the preacher says: “although the manna in its composition was subject to spoilage and turned out to be worthless when they wanted to preserve it even for a long time.” one next day; however, she remained incorruptible, having been placed in a golden frame and placed before God by the hand of Aaron. The same will happen to us. Truly the holy Bishop of your souls, Christ, will clothe our body with divine glory, like some kind of golden vessel, and we, placed before the face of God, will be transformed into incorruption. Manna was taken as an example of this. – In view of such goodness of the Savior, we must, the preacher cries, commit every kind of virtue and unswervingly follow the suggestions of the Gospel; for, having confessed Christ as Lord and God, we thereby agreed to be enslaved to Him, agreed to obedience, committed ourselves to obedience. The greatness of the Savior’s sacrifice for us, revealed in the incarnation and mystery of redemption, obliges you to do this. In view of this, the preacher sets forth teachings about the Face of Jesus Christ, His divine dignity, consubstantiality and equality with the Father, His divine omnipotence, and the necessity of His appearance in the flesh, so that, thanks to it, we would be able to contemplate the unapproachable light of His Divinity. The accomplishment of our salvation by Jesus Christ through the incarnation and prophetic ministry. – δ ’, r. 628 – 629. The cruelty, unbelief, bestial rage and malice of the Jews against Christ the Savior, proclaimed by their prophets. The slander and slander of the Jews against the Savior, and their punishment for such fury by God: they themselves were rejected (from God), and their synagogue was destroyed to the ground. The crown of all atrocities is the delivery of the Lord to death. The fruits of the Savior's death on the cross, His Resurrection and Ascension into heaven. – In conclusion, the preacher offers a brief moral exhortation with a list of virtues recommended to listeners. – έ, r. 632 – 633. Sermon 423 (under no. 11). Calling for joy in the Lord, all-holy fasting and, in general, for every virtue that is acceptable to right-minded people, the preacher convinces listeners to overcome all lethargy, laziness and cowardice, which are shameful even in everyday and worldly affairs and activities (for example, gymnastic exercises) that bring small and temporary glory. This is required of you by both the greatness of the work of the Word that illuminated us and the heavenly reward that awaits us - a reward whose value cannot be equaled by any suffering in this world (Rom. 8:18-19). And now, says Cyril, the time of hope, sobriety, the time of abstinence and holy fasting has come. The preacher preaches about these exploits and labors in the fight against bodily and mental passions, as directed by the Word of God (Ps. 119:126; Num. 10:9–10). - a r. 633–637. In the Old Testament, the Word of God commanded to sound a trumpet when going to war against enemies; but the warfare about which the preacher preaches is directed against the flesh and passions. Therefore, our weapon is of a different nature - a spiritual weapon, as the apostle says (Eph. 6:11). At the same time, you need a brave and indestructible spirit, an unshakable heart. a horde of demons persists in their rage and cruelty against the holy warriors of Christ; it acts against them with the lustful excitements of the flesh. Souls besieged by evil forces are similar to the inhabitants of a city, besieged by the enemy and devoured by internal unrest and discord. This is how the Apostle Paul depicts our sinful state (Rom. 7:22-24). But if so, will we really cede victory to the enemies without any resistance and thereby refuse salvation? Meanwhile, our victory is ensured by very small means: cheerfulness of spirit, purity and abstinence (άσχήσεως). This is how Paul conquered his carnal passions (1 Cor. 9:24). As an example and explanation of what has been said, the author presents “horse handlers” and “helmsmen”. – But since the flesh is mortified (Rom. 8:1-2; 3-4), we should no longer live according to the flesh (Rom. 8:12-14) and be its slaves. β᾿, r. 637 – 641. To combat the flesh, the preacher, in accordance with the teachings of the apostles Paul (Rom. 12:1-2) and John (1 John 2:15-17), recommends to his listeners contempt for the world and its goods, as worthless in value and perishing quickly; He advises, on the contrary, to be adorned with virtues. But one should not limit oneself to physical fasting and should not struggle with the flesh alone; on the contrary, it is necessary to observe every other kind of abstinence, moderation and modesty in morals and behavior, food and clothing, treating with contempt for wealth and any excess in general. – ϒ', r. 641 – 644. But the crown of all virtues should be brotherly love and the union of mutual love, expressed in compassion for the needy and the poor. Without this love, strong faith in God and renunciation of idolatry will be fruitless and useless (James 2:14-16). Mercy and love for neighbors are required not only from someone living in a well-ordered society and brought up in divine laws (Luke 6:36; James 2:13), but even from a savage. The greatness and high price of love can be seen from the example of Job (Job 31, 16, 21). – δ᾿, r. 644 – 645. An example of cruelty and heartlessness is the rich man of the Gospel (Luke 16:19–25). Here, to the Gospel story, the preacher adds a living, perhaps taken from life, illustration of the life of a rich man. “Of course, this rich man had, says Kirill, the thinnest clothes, dyed in real purple, perhaps even sprinkled with gold. A magnificent house, which, I believe, surpassed any surprise and infuriated envious people. Quite a large number of servants dressed in fine clothes; colorful carpets spread all over the floor. Cupbearers, most skilled cooks and excellent bakers are all notorious experts in their craft. A table loaded with dishes (meals and snacks). But there was, of course, a swarm of flatterers who depended on the tongue of the rich man, ready with an oath to shower praise on everything that came into the rich man’s head, and on any stupidity that he respected, and to dishonor any virtue if he spoke ill of it. 0 God-hating and empty shamelessness, i.e. riotous feasts, applause, drinking songs and dances of flutists - why mention it?!.. Isn’t it better to keep silent about something that, just thinking about, you can no longer do without sin?.... A. the other was an unfortunate beggar, not covered, homeless, bloodless, sick, limiting the entire volume of his desired well-being to insignificant sizes - a piece of bread and a scrap rags.... No, the Gospel story even conveys that he reached such pity that he found himself in a community of stinking dogs as his companions, gratefully accepting their services when they, bringing their tasty tongues closer to him, tried to soften his illness with what they themselves, according to natural laws, use to heal their own ulcers 105 (wounds)." Having presented such a bright contrast between the life of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus, and having mentioned that, that the rich man did not even want to hear about the beggar, considered him worse than any last rubbish, the preacher notes that God, meanwhile, and nature do not know such a difference in the lot of people. And indeed, it is the same for everyone - conception, and the diseases of pregnancy, and birth, and growth, and life under the same sky, and so on. Wealth, next to amazing poverty, is an invention of human covetousness. God allows the acquisition of wealth in order to make the rich as stewards of the poor and thereby make them partners with those to whom they have benefited. “But ah..., I forgot,” exclaims the preacher: it happened that after his death Lazarus was transferred by angels to the bosom of Abraham; the rich man, extolled during his life as blessed, and perhaps even more so, having fallen into the claws of death, was imprisoned in deep darkness." έ, pp. 645 - 649. Next, the preacher talks about the advantage of poverty over wealth in general. Wealth in this life, he says, is certainly combined with many passions: pride, covetousness, passion for pleasure and effeminacy. But the poor man is free from all this. He only grieves with himself and sighs; as far from pleasure as it is from luxury. In addition, when discussing wealth, the personal character of each person must be taken into account. What colors produce in matter, the nature of things produces the characters of those persons in whose hands the things are handled. And this again leads to a preference for poverty over wealth: “for if a poor man is content with little and by the sweat of his brow obtains what in itself seems most likely, so to speak, to be achieved, then is he really not worthy of approval and preferential praise - he, who so reveres the law of abstinence, that he is inaccessible to any bad action, although in the face of need he has a strong advisor to evil?“ “But a man famous for his countless treasures, how would he not be subject to accusation if he made wealth the servant of his own pleasure alone?’ - e, p. 649 – ς᾿, r. 652. Next, the preacher talks about equality between people, which is still practiced by the Law of Moses. Precisely, when the Israelites were in the desert and needed food, God sent them manna and established the law for collecting it (Ex. 16, 14; 16 - 17). It is precisely this law about collecting manna that clearly shows that acquiring wealth and necessities does not yet constitute a sin; but what is put aside for savings and insatiably increases beyond any need is the prey of worms.” Therefore, according to the commandment of the Savior (Luke 16:9), the rich must share their abundance with the poor. “By accepting the poor as partners in our wealth, we will share with them in the reward prepared for their righteous life." So, we must have mercy and bear each other’s burdens (of which there are so many) each other. Meanwhile, the preacher notices among his flock terrible examples of inhumanity and cruelty. - ς, pp. 652 - 656. The preacher shows how terrible condemnation and destruction await hard-hearted people from the history of the Edomites and their relations with the Israelites. The Edomites (follows a description of the origin of the Edomites, their country, military pride, religion, with a parallel description of the same features of the life of the Jewish people) were an arrogant and hard-hearted people; when a terrible enemy attacked Judaea, instead of helping and protecting the Jews, they handed them over to the enemy. But for this God struck them with terrible anger: the Edomites were destroyed by the weapons of the Babylonians (Obd. 1, 2 - 7; 10 - 13). “So, you see,” Cyril concludes, how the Edomites, for not providing assistance to the Israelites, suddenly perished with their entire family. But the cruel Babylonian tyrant also received due retribution for his ferocity. When he was returning to his country and was already at the height of his glory, a rebellion broke out in Babylon, and Babylon itself was destroyed and burned along with the royal palaces, and the tyrant was killed. The prophet Jeremiah sang these events (Jeremiah 50, 14 – 15; 22 – 24). – ζ, r. 656 – 661. After this, the preacher offers a moral teaching appropriate to the subject being treated. We must have knowledge of God as a good, merciful Father, and therefore we ourselves must express generous and tender love for our neighbors in their misfortunes and disasters. The basis of virtues must be based on immaculate faith in God. In view of this, St. Cyril expounds a brief catechetical teaching about the trinity of Persons in one God, explains the image of the birth of the Son from the Father. Thus, the Son was born from the Father, not through an expiration, or cutting off, or suffering, and not through creation came from Him, but was born incomprehensibly, spiritually and dispassionately, like God. After this we talk about the mystery of the economy, about the descent to earth of the Son of God, the incarnation of two natures in Jesus Christ under one Person, about his full humanity and full Divinity. The cruelty of the Jews against the Savior; the fruits of the death on the cross and resurrection of the Savior. In conclusion, a brief moral exhortation is offered and the time for celebrating the upcoming Easter of Christ is determined. – η᾿, r. 661 – 665. Sermon 424 (under no. 12). Pointing to the Old Testament law as the canopy and image of the mystery of Christ, the preacher, in accordance with his command to “blow the trumpet on the feasts" delivers a sermon before the holiday of Easter. Namely, in view of this holiday, it is necessary, having been sanctified by the deeds of an immaculate life, to prepare the way for the Lord and receive consolation from a good conscience, and this is achieved mainly by deeds of love and good deeds. Therefore, the preacher exhorts to the feat of courage against the seductions of the devil by the example of brave warriors. At the same time, our courage must be accompanied by joy in the Lord, that is, the aspiration of the spirit to the “things before” (Philippians 3:13), and the oblivion of the “behinds”, or polytheism. -a’, r. 665 – 669. Indeed, we were once possessed by the disease of worshiping creatures, as if by darkness. But with the coming of the Savior, the true light shone for us; and therefore one must avoid God-hating unbelief or dual faith. The baseness and meaninglessness of dual faith according to the teaching of the Word of God (2 Peter 2:21-22) and the judgment of common reason. Explaining the last thought with an example of a disease from which they do not want to free themselves and exchange it for health. And polytheism, or dual faith, is precisely a vile and disgusting illness of the soul. To believe that one is the Creator and life-giver of everything and at the same time to worship demons is similar to the desire to equate the king with true royal dignity and power to his subjects, and vice versa - to equate the subjects who receive honor and respect from him according to their merits to their king. In the latter case, “only the most loyal and close to the king are awarded awards and honors, demonstrating both by their deeds; the treacherous and rebellious are considered among the enemies: for the source of all honors and glory is the will of the king. Hence, those natives who tyrannically and with arms in their hands attempt to seize royal power and power, according to the verdict and judgment of wise people, are not only not worthy of dominion, but also require due punishment. So exactly one is the Lord of all, God, the giver of being and the Lord of all, who, by His goodness, brought existing things from non-existence into being and created an innumerable multitude of holy spirits, establishing order between them and endowing them with appropriate honor. – a’, r. 669 – 673. The faces of holy angels mentioned in Holy Scripture are Powers, Thrones, Dominions, etc. created by God; and therefore their names in the Holy Scriptures do not give rise to the proclamation of polytheism, or dual faith. Angels, as created beings, must be seen as servants of the Creator, worshiping Him and receiving glory and honor from Him. Confirmation of the expressed thought is the words of the prophet Isaiah (6, 1 - 3), representing the angels in the position of servants, and the words of the psalmist (Psalm 103, 19 - 22), showing that among those obliged to glorify the Lord are angels, ministers and powers, and about all of them in conclusion it is said: “bless all His works.” God Himself, through Moses, commands to render divine worship only alone to Himself (Deut. 6.4; 13; 13.1 - 5), instilling that “an abomination before Him is idolatry and is subject to severe punishment. Therefore, says Cyril, “confessing one God above everything and in everything, we will not recognize any other, we will not crown the royal dignity of any visible and generally created beings.” Everything that has been said about open idolatry also applies to the secret ministry of demons. – β ’ r. 673 – 680. So, it is necessary to cleanse yourself from the abomination of dual faith and have a firm and unshakable faith in God, in accordance with the advice of the Apostle (1 Cor. 15:58), - faith that God is one and the same, always existing and abiding forever, the source of wisdom and life (1 Tim. 6:16), known to us, but incomprehensible by nature (Isa. 40:12). “Therefore,” the preacher instills, do not bother in vain about what is above nature, but accept by faith the knowledge that He exists and abides and has dominion over everything. But do not allow your thoughts to go beyond these limits set for human ability. It was in this way that the divine Moses also accepted faith" (Ex. 3 13–15). – ϒ’ pag. 680–681. Next, the preacher expounds the doctrine of the essence of God and the Father (“not created and not begotten”) and the Son (“co-substantial and co-eternal with the Father, born from His essence.”) Just as the Psalmist said about God the Father that He is the source of life and light (Psalm 35:8-10), so the Evangelist John said the same about God the Son (1:9). The Father and the true concept of the divine birth of the Son from the Father must precisely exclude any thought about corporeality. “The incorporeal God, who transcends all our understanding, teaches Cyril, gives birth without separating from Himself, gives birth without dividing, as happens in the bodily human birth about which the preacher spoke above.” “But when asked how the divine nature gives birth, I do not blush at all,” Cyril continues. I will answer: what kind of mind do you have that is trying to cognize what exceeds the mind? What word will explain to you that which is beyond every word?’ This is also what inspired men teach to think (Phil. 4:7; Proverbs 25:2; Isa. 53:8; Hab. 3:5). In general, while knowing that the Son is begotten and co-eternal with the Father, we must nevertheless admit that the nature of God, such as it is, and the image of the divine birth are not entirely accessible to our knowledge. – ϒ', r. 681–684. The human mind, the preacher continues, and the appearance attributed to bodies do not have an essential existence in themselves and do not at all have their own substantiality. The Divine and transcendental Birth, that is, the Son, has an essential existence, as in the proper sense begotten of the Father, who has an unbegotten essence.’ The difference between the terms “begotten” and “unbegotten” should not confuse anyone, as the unfortunate want (Jeremiah 23:16; Joel 1:5; Isaiah 74:6; Isaiah 59:5; John 3:31) heretics who deny the oneness of the Son with the Father. They say that “begotten” and “unbegotten” are different, just as the concepts themselves are different. Agreeing that there really is a difference in these sayings, Cyril responds, however, “that no cunning will force him to admit that what is born is of a different nature than what gives birth. On the contrary, according to the true concept of birth, he says, what is born must be of the same nature and consubstantial with the one who gave birth. If the heretics themselves admit that the Father begat the Son, then in what way will He be alien and of a different nature, who by His nature shone forth as the Son from His Father?" To admit the opposite means to place the divine, all-surpassing, nature in such conditions that even created nature does not experience and is ashamed to endure, where each creature produces from itself completely homogeneous and consubstantial with itself. But if God, endowing the creature with the ability of birth, recognizes this as beautiful, then why does He deprive Himself of this? - But perhaps the heretics will say that the Father did not give birth? But in that case, why do they focus on this difference in words, i.e. “begotten” and “unbegotten”? If God the Father did not give birth, then according to them it turns out that the Son was not born either, therefore there is no point in presenting the difference in terms as an insoluble problem for Orthodox teaching. But in this same case, who is the only begotten one about whom the Lord says: “From the womb before the morning star I gave birth to Thee” (Ps. 109:3)? And the divine Paul asserts that the first and only “Father” in the proper sense is God the Father; nevertheless, everything created by Him receives the name Father in the likeness of Him (Eph. 3:15). According to the heretics, it turns out that the Father did not beget the Son, that He is falsely the Father: “But, wise men! says Cyril, if God is not by nature and truly the Father and if He has not begotten from Himself, i.e. from our essence, our own Son, and at the same time we are true fathers, having our own children from ourselves, then how is it that “the whole fatherland” is from Him, as it is written? It turns out that He is called Father in His likeness to us, and we are not fathers through Him?! But one must follow not their chatter, but the voice of the saints; The divine Paul does not lie when he says that God is the first and truly Father and has one in essence, begotten from Himself, the Son.“ - δ᾿, p, 684–688. So, if the terms “begotten” and “unbegotten,” continues St. Cyril’s refutation, do not indicate, according to the teachings of the heretics, either the begottenness of the Son or the unbegottenness of the Father, but represent only characteristic names for essences, then how did the heretics learn about the difference between the Son and the Father? If begotten and unbegotten are the names of essences, then who revealed to the heretics that The Son is alien to the Father and is not identical with Him in essence? For essence in comparison with another essence, since they are thought of only as essences, have nothing contrary to each other. So, what prevents the Son from being similar in essence to the Father, if not the opposite of what these sayings mean? Continuation of the refutation of the heretical opinion that "ungeneracy" designates an essence. For this purpose, St. Cyril sets forth the logical (Aristotelian) doctrine of "definitions" and "essences", "genera" and "differences" (with examples of both) and applies these concepts to the terms "begotten" and "ungenerate". "If the name "unbegotten" means the essence of God, argues Kirill, and there is a “definition, then after the “genus” there must also be a “difference” 107. What will the heretics say to this? Under what "genus" will the supreme God fit? What kind of "difference" is allowed? Moreover, essences are rationally and logically signified not through that which does not exist, but through that whose existence is recognized. Consequently, the concept of "ungeneracy" in relation to God (the Father) is given not on the basis of what God is, but on the basis of what He is not, because this term shows that He is not born." So, in conclusion, the preacher confesses faith in the Trinitarian God, briefly outlines the history of the economy of our salvation; its accomplishment by our Lord Jesus Christ and the fruits of salvation; a brief moral exhortation is offered to the listeners. Easter date. – ς, r. 689–693. Sermon of 425 (no. 13). Having expressed a sacred greeting to the listeners and flock (Galat. 1, 3 - 5) in view of the approach of the holy and all-praised feast of Easter, the preacher in a living and visual image represents the humiliating and disastrous state of people under the tyranny of sin, pleasure and death and hordes of demons, and the ineffable mercy of God towards people, revealed in the economy of our salvation, when God took away every tear and reproach from his people, his only begotten Word sent us from heaven, becoming human and putting to death sin in the flesh, presenting us as superior and inaccessible to destruction and corruption. - a, r. 693 – 696. The preacher, in accordance with the Word of God, depicts the appearance of Christ on earth, or the time of his incarnation, under the guise of spring. “Through the Son of God we all blossomed into incorruption and life, for He appeared as spring on the mountains." To illustrate his thought, St. Cyril paints a picture of springtime and applies it to the appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ on earth. The groom of the “Song of Songs" (the image of Christ), indicating the church, as his bride, to the onset of springtime (Song. 2. 10 - 12) Christ, further, appeared as the gospel of peace and goodness; for He freed us from Satan and the hordes of demons who tyrannized over the entire universe and forced people to worship creation - the sun, moon, water, earth, air, fire, etc. But God the Word, having appeared on earth, preached, as predicted (Isaiah 61:1-2), release to the captives and gave us the power to attack all the power of the enemy (Luke 10:19). But if the kings of the earth turn those they save into their slaves and subject them to laws, then therefore we, as redeemed by Christ and taken by Him from the error of polytheism, will offer Him our own life as a gift, which is what the Apostle inspires (2 Cor. 5:14-15). – β᾿ pag. 696 – 700. The order of Moses 108 (Ex. 30, 12 - 16) regarding the tribute (gift) to the Lord of half a didrachm from each adult soul, and therefore - a whole didrachm, or statir, in tribute for two souls, or heads, the preacher considers to be an image of the New Testament gospel event, namely the payment by the Lord of a whole statir, or didrachm, for two - for Himself and Peter (Matthew 17:23 – 24 – 26), and the Gospel story itself is conveyed in detail. “In this sense, understand,” says Kirill, that for two heads one or a whole didrachm was offered. What image is hidden in this shadow of the law? The true statir is the image of the great King, - that is, the Son, the image and radiance of the essence of the Father, who betrayed Himself and gave his own soul as a ransom not only for Israel, but also for countless nations... Consequently, the divine and heavenly statir was given for two heads." Further, St. Cyril speaks about God's liberation of the Israelites from the slavery of Egypt, about the defeat of the Egyptians by executions and the demand by Him (God) from those freed as if equal reward (gift), namely the dedication of the first-born males to Him (Ex. 13, 2; 11 - 12; 14 - 15). “Therefore, the preacher cries out to God, who defeats our enemies and delivers us beyond our expectations from the tyranny of the devil.... We, beloved, must offer to His benefactor sufficient gratitude, that is, right and unshakable faith and unslothful deeds,” ϒ', pag. 700 – 704. It is precisely in view of the holiday that we need to decorate ourselves with abstinence and fasting, and since this alone is not enough for the perfection of virtue, let good morals and a sober lifestyle be added to it. – Reassurance and encouragement to those who despair, due to the multitude of sins, in the opportunity to appease God, the righteous Judge, and to be justified before Him – reassurance with the words of Paul (Eph. 2:1-5) about the riches of God’s mercy. Proof of this great and ineffable love and mercy of God for us is the sacrament of our redemption from sin. In view of this, the preacher reveals the sotereological (relating to the mystery of our salvation) and christological teaching, i.e. that Jesus Christ is Lord, the true Word of the Father, that He was not only in man, but became full man: “The Word became flesh” (John. 1, 14), did not pass (change) into the nature of the flesh - for this would be a change that is completely alien to the divine nature, but only connected in His Person that which, according to natural laws, was separated from kinship with each other, remaining God even after the incarnation and not allowing the superiority of the flesh over the all-exceeding Divinity, but better - elevating what was received to its own glory i.e. The unbelief and cruelty of the unfortunate Jews against Christ; refutation of their objections and slander against the Lord. The death of Jesus Christ, His descent into hell, resurrection and ascension to heaven. The fruits of all this are for believers. A short moral message to the listeners. Easter date. – δ᾿, r. 704 – 709. Sermon of 426 (no. 14). The Old Testament sacred writings, which sang the properties of our holiday, the preacher begins, commanded the trumpet to be blown on new moons and holidays. With the transition of images into the truth itself, this means that it is necessary to preach a sermon about the holiday of Easter, as “a new time of the resurrection of the Savior, for anyone in Christ is a new creation.” Obeying this command, the preacher teaches listeners to sanctify fasting, and then, following the example of generals who instruct soldiers to be courageous before battle, offers spiritual warriors advice: courageously fight passions, to mortify pleasures and direct thoughts to everything that is worthy of reverence. The importance of this feat according to the apostle (2 Cor. 4:16) and the reward that awaits us for the labors of abstinence, justice and prudence, namely access to the “marriage supper.” Proof through everyday and generally everyday examples - for example, a person who appears to a noble person and at a national celebration - of the need, in view of the festive celebration, to adorn himself with virtues, like shiny and expensive clothes, and to wash himself from the dirt of vice (fornication, greed, gossip, talkativeness, deception and deceit). – a’, r. 709 – 712. In the words of the Apostle John (1 John 2:15 – 17), the preacher further convinces listeners to abstain from sins of the flesh, selfishness and worldly pride. The lust of the flesh is the pleasures of the table, the belly and luxury in general; lust for hair - the contemplation of bodily beauty, shiny matter and everything that pleasantly irritates the eyes - convinces us that we, as those buried in Christ, should not live for the world, but are obliged to walk in newness of life. At the same time, St. the father teaches that a truly good life must be evidenced by deeds themselves (James 3:13), strongly denouncing the hypocritical way of life, that is, when they say one thing and do another. Comparison of such hypocrites with a person who, when asked to choose health or illness, would choose the latter. Meanwhile, the health of the soul is incomparably more valuable than the health of the body. The health of the soul is love for God and worship of the Creator with complete faith, thirst for virtue and aversion to sin. This is instilled in us by the ancient law (Deut. 6:5 – Matt. 22:37) and everyday examples. Thus, servants close to and devoted to the king must show their goodwill towards the ruler by their very deeds and actions. Hence, to confess one God only in words, but in reality not to turn away from the worship of demons, what else does this mean, if not to verbally express goodwill towards the king, but in the soul to be devoted to enemies? God himself denounces such people through the mouth of Isaiah the prophet (Is. 29:13). β ’ – r. 712 – 717. Next, the preacher directs his speech against astrologers, soothsayers and sorcerers, who deceive people with knowledge of other people's life circumstances and knowledge of the future, which is characteristic of God alone. "They, the preacher says about soothsayers and fortune-tellers, gathering crowds of pitiful old women, whisper to them their inventions, passing them off as the divine will. " Such wickedness was threateningly denounced in the Israelis by God himself through the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel (8, i - 9; 17 - 19). "These, Cyril continues, are prophets not called by God, trying to proclaim what is characteristic only our true prophecy, and posing as insightful seers of someone else’s fate, they are so mistaken in their own affairs that, having fallen into misfortune, they complain that they did not expect to be exposed to disaster. Meanwhile, those who know the future could easily avoid what would happen. Why can’t these priests of divination prevent their own misfortunes? But they object to this that some of what was predicted is still coming true. In response to this, St. Kirill says: “From the fact that something happens in accordance with the prediction, we do not draw stupid and trivial conclusions, but attribute such a coincidence only to an innocent coincidence. But the fact that not everything comes true with the truth serves as a clear exposure of your characteristic shamelessness, idle talk and talkativeness of your science. What is from God is free from error and deception, for it is based on omniscience and complete knowledge of the truth, while human inventions are based on mere assumptions." Such soothsayers, according to Cyril, are like an archer who has lost his sight and still aims at the target and shoots arrows one after another, most of which fly past the target. "Nevertheless, it does not in the least prevent him, says Cyril, from hitting the target. But although, he adds to This is why the father boasts of one such accidental success, for which he is ridiculed all other times. Because of one happy time, no sighted person would be proud; on the contrary, he would be ashamed even for the accidental mistake of others. Only holy and inspired prophets had knowledge of the future, according to the revelation of the Holy Spirit, after a distant period of time and without error. Through the latter, God denounces astrology (Jeremiah 10: 2 – 3). - The stars were created to illuminate the earth and show the seasons to farmers, and not to show the future, the knowledge of which belongs to God alone. Therefore, God strongly reproaches false soothsayers (Deut. 18:9-14), even though what they predicted sometimes came true (Deut. 13:1-3), - he calls this deed most shameful and abominable. Therefore, let us not succumb to their Tricks, says the preacher, but let us march toward all goodness and true knowledge of God. – ϒ', r. 720 – 25. A brief statement of faith, or teaching about God, threefold in persons, about the Son as the Creator of the world and Provider. – The Fall of people and hence the dominion of sin and death over the human race. The economy of God about our salvation: the incarnation of the only begotten Word of God, the Christological teaching about the person of Jesus Christ; the unbelief of the Jews and the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross; His Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven; the fruits of all this are for the believers. In conclusion, the preacher gives a brief moral admonition to the listeners and flock and defines. time for the upcoming Easter. ϒ’ – r. 725 – 728. Sermon of 427 (under number 15). Calling believers to spiritual joy and celebration in view of the upcoming Easter holiday, the preacher shows what the nature of this celebration should be. Our holiday has a spiritual and sacred character, and not a carnal one, consisting in the pleasures of the womb. At the same time, the appropriateness of the preaching word for inciting the exploits of spiritual life is pointed out, as can be seen from the words of the psalmist and Moses about the law of the trumpet before going to war. “But among the ancients,” says the preacher, the war took place with blood and flesh - with the Moabites, Midianites and other countless tribes adjacent to the Judthian country. For us, who struggle by faith in Christ, the war is not with flesh and blood; we are waging a holy war against the most ancient enslavers and against every passion that arises in us. Therefore, let the mental trumpet sound among us, that is, the preaching of the holy and inspired Scripture, directing courageous fighters to the highest feats of holy warfare, to shirk from which is a matter of cowardice.” To explain this, the author cites the words of the prophet Joel (3, 9 – 10) about the unforging of sickles and plows into swords and spears, and their (allegorical) interpretation in the sense of the onset of a spiritual war with passions and sin and neglect of earthly interests with the coming of Christ to earth. “Plows and sickles,” says the preacher, are the most useful tools for farmers. Is it possible, therefore, that the law removes us from a calm and hardworking life and inspires us to lead a fierce and warlike life, as the best? No, answers St. father, - the law subtly shows you that the time is coming when those justified in Christ and sanctified in the Spirit will wage war against passions and sin and will be imbued with unearthly interests... but will show themselves the sweat of exploits of virtue, rise above all laziness." The words of the Apostle Paul about spiritual armor (Eph. 6, 14 - 18) and courageous conduct lead to such an understanding of this. Christian warrior - a, p. 728 - 732. Those who are incapable of this holy war, that is, those who lead a life contrary to what has been said, must be expelled from the regiment, or the host of saints, that is, those capable of war. The preacher sees an indication of this in the law of Moses (Num. 5:23) about the removal from the camp of the “leper”, the “shedder of semen” and the “unclean in soul” - a law motivated by the fact that there would be no chance of infecting other healthy people. This law cannot be understood in a literal sense: for “for the first author of all holiness and righteousness it would be more natural to honor with favor those innocently visited by misfortune. So, leprosy, loss of natural seed, etc. - do not depend on our will, since no one is sick at will - and therefore cannot be considered an accusation for those suffering from these diseases. Criminal morals and evil will are subject to punishment. So, it means that the law is unfair to lepers, but for the rest it prescribed too harsh a punishment? Not at all, Cyril answers: the law is holy... (Rom. 7:12). But the fact is that he showed the truth through shadow and image. So, by lepers we mean people who are morally corrupt, changeable, and knowledgeable; under seed-bearing ones - carnivores, overwhelmed by the most shameful passion (fornication); under unclean souls - those who cry and grieve for the dead. So, “incapable of battle and in no case can they show themselves conquerors of passions, infected with a variety of diseases of depravity; Those who are unbridled in shameful pleasures and immoderately sad for the dead are not counted among the saints; because God clearly says that the dead will be resurrected (Is. 26:19). Therefore, we must be courageous in overcoming passions and endure harsh labors with firmness, like our Savior, who endured the cross for us, as the apostle teaches (Heb. 12:2) - β᾿. r. 732–736. About the ineffable and beyond the human mind birth of the Son of God from the Father, with the removal from here of all those base and carnal ideas that are thought at human birth. “Let us not therefore think,” the preacher taught, “that what is born must be preceded by non-existence το μή ύπάρχεινὄλως ). This can only be said about bodies or about what is characteristic of us, where the path to being is actually preceded by non-existence. In addition, there is also a division here, so that the one who is born receives his special Form from the one who gave birth. But it would not be madness to allow division, or cutting off, as well as the temporality of birth in essence, which exceeds and surpasses everything that is born. For if the Father is always the Father and did not come from potentiality only, but from time, to the very act of birth, then it is necessary that He through whom He is the Father always existed. Or; when to the One whose “was” (John. 1.1) is called, nothing is presupposed, then where would the running of thought stop and to what limit would it reach if our mind, soaring in the imagination, wanted to catch up (catch up to the end) this “be? - “So, the Only Begotten shone like light, from the essence of God the Father and exists in its own image and is conceived in its separate substantial existence” - consubstantial, co-worshipped, equally powerful with the Father... “But if we theologize about the Holy Spirit as co-existing in the same exact way, then the faith about the Holy Trinity is right and free from any reproach.” – ϒ’. r. 736 – 737. Following this, the preacher moves on to the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God and the mutual relationship of natures - Divine and human after their union in the Person of Jesus Christ. “It is very dangerous to think and say, teaches Cyril, that human nature has been enriched by the divine and ineffable nature, plunging it into its characteristic ugliness and depriving it of its own superiority. On the contrary, we should think that everything inherent in our nature is subject to the nature of the Divine and, having been overcome by superior glory, passes into that which is better and more excellent. If the sun, striking the dirt with its rays, retains its brilliance intact, then how could the purest and highest and dispassionate divine nature suffer harm through treatment of the lower? But some arrogant people do not recognize this secret, the preacher continues; in their mockery they consider all this a pointless matter, claiming that we believe empty chatter; and yet they themselves, when they want to brag about something, blindly believe and repeat: “he said it himself.” – ϒ, r. 737 – 740. The Preacher further refutes the objections made by such heretics. To their first objection: “How could the purest spirit (own mind), completely free from volume and limitation, inhabit the body of one person? St. Cyril replies: “Yes, and we affirm that the nature of the Word is unlimited, although it is said that It dwelt, as if in the Holy Church, in a body (born) from Mary, and, like God, It filled the heavens, the earth and what is under it; but at the same time it was also a man.” If your thought cannot comprehend this, then many other things in the world are incomprehensible to it: on what, for example, is the earth founded?” and so on. They say, further, that it is humiliating for the all-exceeding God to become like us." "So, are you complaining, asks the preacher, that, being humane and good by nature, He showed excessive concern for us than it should have"? But just the mere mention of “goodness” collapses such an objection and accusation. In fact: would it be better for God not to pay any attention to a person who has fallen into all sorts of indecencies, or to deign to care for someone in need? Prudence requires recognizing that it is better and more fitting for Him who is good by nature to share with His creatures the benefits of His own goodness.” Confirmation of the expressed thoughts by the example of doctors, the words of Scripture (Ps. 55: 8 - 9) and the opinions of philosophers (Theoktist in Stobaeus). – ϒ, r. 740 – 741. The original state of man before the Fall - it was God who created him incorruptible and immortal, capable of knowledge of all good and awarded him with freedom to strive for all virtue. The Fall of man and, hence, corruption and death, as punishment for transgressing the will of God. The means of salvation for man in the Old Testament: “law” and “prophets”. The insufficiency of the latter for salvation, and the need for God himself to descend to earth. But it is impossible for people to contemplate God in His pure and undisguised divine nature and essence, as can be seen from the words of even pagan writers (Hom. Iliad. 5, 72) of the history of the Israelites (Ex. 20, 19). In view of this, a mediator was needed between God and people; This is how Moses was in ancient times. But God, presenting the ministry of Moses as a kind of prototype of the ministry of Christ, promised that, after the fulfillment of times, He Himself would visibly appear to us (Deut. 18.] 7 - 18). Therefore, the Only Begotten Word of God became man. Purpose of incarnation; the unbelief of Israel, despite the predictions about the Savior of the prophets (Isa. 35, 3 - 4; 40, 10 - 11, Ezek. 34, 20 - 25). Death of the Savior, rebellion and ascension to heaven; the fruits of it all. In conclusion, the preacher offers a brief moral lesson to the congregation and indicates the time for celebrating Easter. – δ᾿, r. 744 – 748. Sermon of 428 (no. 16) In the "prologue" the preacher shows that he does not mean to shine with an abundant flow of words, oratorical eloquence and rhetorical devices. His preaching is the fulfillment of a fatherly duty in imitation of good and wise mentors, and as such should be accepted by the listeners. - page 748. Metaphorical application of the Old Testament decrees on the strict keeping and celebration of holidays (Zech. 14:16; Am. 3:13) and especially the Easter holiday (Num. 9:2-3) to the Christian holiday of Easter. From here the preacher derives his duty to preach about the celebration of the holiday with the holiness, zeal and highest joy that is due to it (Isa. 61:10). the need for the latter is clear from the example of merchants and farmers, having fun and rejoicing over their soon-to-be-perishing profits and abundance of harvest - so insignificant in comparison with the immaculate life and contrition of the power of corruption and death, which is prepared for the saints and which surpasses all understanding. – a’, r. 748 – 749. According to the law of Moses, Passover is supposed to be celebrated on the 14th day of the first month in the evening and “according to the law.” So, why is it commanded to celebrate it in the spring and in the first month? Before answering this question, the preacher teaches how to expound the Scriptures. The Word of God, says Cyril, inspires in no way to move away from the correctness of thought, saying: “Dwell with Me” (Is. 21:12). For all correctness is together with God, with Him and from Him. - a, r. 749 – 752. “Spring time, the author answers the question posed above, is more appropriate than all other seasons because with its events, as if on a table, it depicts the nature and essence of the deeds accomplished by Christ.” Therefore, the preacher picturesquely depicts a picture of spring time, presenting spring itself as the speaker, for example, in this way: “let me, finally, let the mountain peaks and valleys be decorated with densely leafed trees and the bare fields be covered and bloom with greenery; let the lily flaunt in the meadows; let the most fragrant flowers smile in the gardens; let the bee herself burst out of her cell and fill the fields with her buzzing...., let herds and lambs come out of the sheds, jumping on their tender and young legs around their mothers....; let the garden knife be sharpened”, etc. And so that such a personification of an inanimate object does not seem strange, Cyril shows the use of this turn of phrase in the Holy Scripture itself (Ps. 18: 2 - 3; Isa. 23: 4). Β ' - p', p. 752. Then the author makes a detailed application of the circumstances of springtime to the matter of the appearance of the Savior on earth and His atonement of people. Winter time before spring is the time of Satan’s reign, when everything was enveloped in darkness and darkness, and everyone’s thoughts were weakened to the point of deadness by the deadly devilish cold. But winter has passed and darkness has been banished, the Sun of righteousness, Christ, illuminates us with mental rays of light; everything blossomed and turned green with the gospel preaching, with the writings of the holy apostles... Herds of verbal sheep and lambs graze on the rich pasture, that is, those who have not yet reached spiritual strength. Like laughing lilies, these believers have bloomed in the gardens of the church, fragrant with the glory of Christ," etc. To such an understanding of the matter, i.e., contemplation of the deeds of the Savior in the circumstances of spring, is led by the Bridegroom of the Song of Songs (i.e., Christ), pointing to His bride (the church) at the onset of spring. - ϒ', pp. 752 - 753 Then, posing the question why the laws on festivities were not immediately determined, but only in the second year of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, St. Cyril answers: “It was necessary for the sacrament of Christ to be removed for a while during the period of existence of the law. It was necessary that the images of the truth be revealed in advance, and that preliminary exercises for them be shown before the competition itself." The development of this thought through the example of a warrior gradually mastering his art is the order of studying the sciences (“the elements are studied first”) and different types of food for different ages (1 Cor. 3:2). - Further, the Old Testament tabernacle, in accordance with the command of God (Exodus 25:40; 40:2), was also placed by Moses in the second year in the new moon of the first month (Exodus 40:15). And “it was then, says the preacher, that the lamb was slain, signifying the truly sacred and blameless sacrifice, that is, Christ... The image of the new age is very clearly seen in the new moon (2 Cor. 5, 16)" for the tabernacle means the church which our Savior himself erected when the times of ancient images had passed, during which death and sin reigned. - "But the very structure of the tabernacle very clearly shows that the time of the law was usefully preceded by what was revealed by Christ - the time of the law. After which a better and more sacred time was finally to appear, opening communion with God." Thus, according to the description of the tabernacle by the Apostle Paul (Heb. 9, 2 - 4; 6 - 7) and his explanation of its structure (Heb. 9, 8, 12), the first tabernacle (i.e., its first compartment or sanctuary) “is still accessible to many,” but the second and inner part, i.e., the Holy of Holies, is inaccessible, for only the high priest entered into it, with blood, once a year. “Jesus went into the Holy of Holies as a forerunner for us, having obtained eternal redemption, “not without blood, as it is written, for he was sacrificed for us, as a most blameless sacrifice to God the Father. Therefore, the standing of those offering sacrifices in the 1st tabernacle (i.e. 1st section of it) was appropriate, or made sense at a time when the law did not allow entering the “Holy of Holies”: “for the way of the saints was not revealed, even though the first tabernacle had standing.” – δ᾿, r. 753 – 760. The preacher moves on to reveal the image of eating Easter. According to the command of Moses, the Passover lamb was to be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, having the following position of the body: “Let your loins be girded, and your saps on your feet, and your staffs in your hands, and eat it with care” (Ex. 12:11). “So, what does the command indicate, the preacher asks, so that those who eat They girded the lamb’s loins, put on boots and held a rod in their hands? This image clearly speaks of the plan of the economy, Cyril answers: “for those who truly celebrate the all-holy festival and are called to participate in the blessing of Christ will consider their stay in this life as nothing; but, far removing themselves from addiction (properly “choice”) to carnal life, they finally think about the above, hurry to the Highest City and move, as it were, into another life, befitting, of course, saints and completely removed from earthly life; That’s why the law prescribes that those who eat should have themselves in the way of the road, as if they were about to move on to a better and higher life.” At the same time, Easter must be "consumed with care," for those who lead a God-loving and praiseworthy life must seize every convenient moment and not allow time that is precious for work and activity to flow away. The preacher cites proof of this from the example of sailors who carefully use the time convenient for their affairs and occupations. - Next, Easter must be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. "in In inspired scripture, says Cyril, there is a custom to liken corrupt morals to leavened dough. Bitter herbs are taken as a prototype and symbol of what causes torment to the spirit, that is, persecution and temptation and labor for Christ to the point of sweat. So, if anyone has managed to have participation with Christ, let him not neglect virtue, let him move away from everything that outrages. conscience, and let him appear as a sufferer. Those who celebrate the Passover in the proper manner must be enlightened by the teaching of the purest Divinity, by the explanation of sacred dogmas, free from selfish inventions, and consider it blessedness: for this food is pure and unleavened.’ The Lord Himself commands us to guard ourselves from the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 16:6), for we are not far from the Jewish ingenuity - the inventions of heretics and the inventions of worldly fables and old woman stupidity “Therefore, let us saturate our minds with the teachings of the holy prophets, the commandments of Moses, the teaching of the Gospel and the apostolic writings.” ε᾿, r. 760 – 764. What was indicated by the command just discussed, that is, that we should follow the divine path, is charged to us by the Lord himself (Matthew 16:24), who gave Himself for us so that we would follow in His footsteps. Having mentioned the Savior, the preacher proceeds to reveal the doctrine of the economy, and first of all names the reason for it: the tyranny of Satan over the human race after the fall of people, sin, polytheism and idolatry (namely, “the sun, the moon, the stars”) as the work and invention of Satan. The Creator's mercy towards distressed humanity and the means of salvation used by Him in the Old Testament (the law of Moses and the prophets). Opposition to this is Satan and the need for the Son of God himself to descend to earth. The Savior's completion of the mystery of the economy is the destruction of sin, the mortification of death and the abolition of the dominion of the devil. “Therefore,” says the preacher, the only begotten Word of God became man, through whom all things came into being and, having been created, are preserved. But what is the image of the economy, i.e. the union of the Word with our flesh, it is not entirely safe to explore, for what exceeds the mind and the word is always worthy of being above research and not subject to research." Then the preacher speaks about the miracles of Jesus Christ, His death on the cross according to the stiff-necked Jews, its purpose and fruits. - In conclusion, a short moral exhortation is offered, as usual, with a list of virtues. Date of Easter. - τ ', pp. 764 - 768. Sermon of 429 (under number 17). In the "profeoria" (introduction), the preacher indicates the subject of his church word - the exhortation to maintain the right faith and lead a praiseworthy and impeccable life. Following this, with reasoning and examples of gymnasts and their mentors, the preacher shows the usefulness and appropriateness of his word, encouraging listeners to good deeds - patience and courage (Ps. 30:25). The preacher is aware that his word does not shine. eloquence, but in this case he encourages himself with the good purpose of his word and the words of God to Moses (Exodus 4:11), as well as the law of Moses - to dedicate turtle doves to God, although not distinguished by the size or beauty of the feathers, but for that reason they sing well. for himself birds that sing beautifully, and prefers them to others..., teaching us in an indirect way that the best and most sacred are those who are entrusted with the gift of speech and who are able to teach lovers of beautiful explanations” a’, pag. 768 – 772. A presentation of the Gospel narrative (Luke 22:7 – 10) about the Lord’s orders regarding preparations for the upcoming Easter holiday. After some pious reflections on the story conveyed, the preacher reasons: “if anyone has the intention of having Christ himself settled and dwelling in the soul and celebrating the holiday with Him 109, then, having performed abundant cleansing with water 110, let him wash away the sin of his soul and be cleansed from the filth of ancient mysteries (αίνι ϒ μάτων), as he suggests. Isaiah the prophet (1:16 – 18): for “what fellowship is there between light and darkness (2 Cor. 6:14), virtue and vice? To combine virtue and vice means to be changeable, lame on both legs (1 Kings 18:21); and such a connection is prohibited by the law (Deut. 22:10-11), which did not allow harnessing a youth and a donkey together, etc. Consequently, only by cleansing ourselves from the filth of vice and sinful filth can we build a high room for Christ and celebrate with Him. – β ’, r. 772 – 3. Having then moved from the previous words to the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God, who was born before every age and time from the Father, co-equal and co-eternal with his Parent, equally active and co-throne with Him, the Creator and Artist of everything, etc., and in recent times who took human birth according to the economy, the preacher dwells in detail on the disclosure of the so-called Christological teaching 111 and, above all, on proof of the divine dignity of the incarnate God the Word. “It was not for this, says Cyril, that the Only Begotten Tin of God became a man in order to cease to be God, on the contrary, in order to preserve the glory of his own superiority through the perception of the flesh... Although He was always, like the Word, co-throne with His Father and from Him and in Him by nature, yet He again, being already with the flesh, heard (the Father) speaking: “Sit at My right hand, until I will put your enemies under your feet” (Psalm. 109, 1 – 2). Thus we attribute to Him the worship of all of us and of St. angels, not foolishly reducing Him to human nature alone, but in accordance with the divine Scripture, introducing into unity with our nature the Word born of God, and uniting into one what belongs to both (natures), so that He was thought of not just as a man who bore divinity, but on the contrary as God incarnate, accepting the unity predetermined by Providence, that is, his own flesh and birth from the Holy Virgin. Thus, only in this case, and not otherwise, can one think of one Christ and one Lord, not divided after an ineffable union on the one hand into man, and on the other into God. But although there is a difference in the natures that have entered into unity, still He must be accepted and considered as one Son." Having compared Christ with a precious light-refracting stone 112, the preacher continues: "Inexpressibly, so that we can neither understand nor express, Divinity and humanity were united into something that is already thought of as one, so that in Him (Christ) man could also be thought, like us, and God greater than us, that is, the Only Begotten and the First-born.” The direct conclusion from here is that Christ was the God-man. This idea is further expressed by Kirill. Citing the words of the prophet Isaiah (7, 16) - “before you know whether to reject good or evil, you will reject the evil one, even if you choose what is good,” Cyril interprets: “As for the human mind, age did not yet give the baby the ability to discern the nature of things. But He was also God in humanity, leaving human nature to follow the path of its own laws, preserving at the same time the purest Divinity. For only such, and not in another way, what is born can be thought of as God by nature, and the Virgin who gave birth can be considered the mother of not just flesh and blood, like our mothers, but rather the matter of the Lord and God, clothed in our likeness. This is what the divine Paul writes: “God gave birth to his Son from a woman”... (Gal. 4:7). We do not think that the Word of God dwelt in a man born of a woman; but, on the contrary, we crown with praise the voice of John, who wisely and clearly said: “And the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). We think of the Word as having become flesh, when He partook of flesh and blood like those who are in flesh and blood, that is, us." At the same time, the preacher shows that human birth was not humiliating and despicable for the Word, that in itself it has birth from God as sufficient for itself, and if it accepts carnal birth, then not as some kind of new beginning of being. Here, by the way, the preacher gives a new type of evidence in favor of term θεοτόχος. “Just as the pure and all-holy flesh taken from the Holy Virgin became the own flesh of the Word, who is from God and the Father, so also everything that is characteristic of the flesh (except for sin); and for the flesh in particular and more than anything else, birth from the mother must be proper. But the Divinity in itself, outside the flesh, of course, must and certainly be. motherless .– β᾿, pp. 773–77. Then again, confirming the teaching that he who was born of a Virgin is Immanuel and therefore the one who gave birth should be called the mother of God, the preacher proves the divine dignity of Emmanuel with the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. 15:47) and prophet. Isaiah (1:1 – 7), who saw the Lord Almighty and God Himself almost accomplishing the creation of the divine fruit in the Holy Virgin. Every word of Isaiah St. Cyril explains in a prophetic sense about Christ. So, the scroll is great and new - this is the new and great sacrament of Christ; “Human writing” is written so that when the Only Begotten Word of God became man and dwelt in us, then everything characteristic of Him is depicted in a form or image similar to us. The word “approached” figuratively means the law of copulation; St. is called a prophetess. Virgo; The newborn Son is given a name - “quick to captivity, brazenly to plunder" - characteristic not of man, but of his excellent actions, as of God. Indeed, the divine and transcendental baby, although he was in swaddling clothes, by human nature, but like God, with indescribable power he plundered the vessels of Satan (Matthew 12:29). - Having mentioned the adolescence of Jesus Christ, the preacher clarifies the true meaning of the expressions “advanced in age and wisdom.” “When you hear these words, do not think, he teaches, that the Word of God became wise through a gradual increase in wisdom. Remember better than Paul, who wrote: “Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). But do not dare to foolishly say that “we learn to prosper in age, wisdom,” etc. This, in my opinion, would mean nothing more than dividing one Christ into two.” “But how could human nature accommodate the power of the ineffable Divinity,” asks Cyril? If a person cannot endure the sight of God (Ex. 33:20), then how was the union in question possible? “I will answer this,” says Cyril, that this is a miracle that exceeds the Word, and that the image of the economy is completely incomprehensible to our human mind.” But a wise and clear example of this was given by God himself to Moses in the vision of a fireproof bush (Ex. 3:1-6). At the same time, God, not allowing Moses to reach the bush, showed that if anyone began to use the guidance of the law and the shadows of images, he would not come closer to Christ. In the form of a fire that engulfed the entire bush, but did not burn it, there was the Lord Himself. How is it that a substance so thin and easily combustible did not suffer at all from the approach of fire? But in this example there was a clear image of the sacrament of Christ: for just as fire could be endured without harm to the bush, in the same way the immensity of the Divinity could be endured for our nature. Consequently, as far as our understanding and word of expression are concerned, then, perhaps, for them Divinity and humanity seem incompatible with each other in the unity of nature. But nevertheless they came together precisely in Christ, and of both there is one Emmanuel. But he who presents both man and the Son as separate from Him who is from God by nature, has, therefore, not understood the depth of this sacrament. For we did not learn from the saints who taught us to perform service and worship man, but precisely God made man. Therefore, we affirm, further, that Emmanuel has been declared king over us." The preacher proves the last thought with the words of the prophet Isaiah (3'2, I) and the Psalmist (2, 6). - ϒ', pp. 777 - 784. The author further proves the divine dignity of Jesus Christ by the story of the reign of Saul over Israel (1 Samuel 8:5 - 7), who, according to the prophet Hosea (13:II), in anger was made king over those who rejected God’s rule over them. Christ, as appointed by God as king over us, could not be a simple man, “If, says Cyril, Christ is a man similar to us, and not the Word who appeared in human form, but at the same time he was appointed king and rules over the earthly 113, then who would fall into such idle talk as to think and say that He (Christ) also received the kingdom in the wrath of God and the Father, and since we were in hostility (with God) and in sin, then he put us under the yoke of man 114?... So, why, driven by anger, does he punish those who have received sanctification? But I answer, Kirill continues, that we are freed from sins and our circumstances are imbued with divine mercy. Consequently, it was not man who reigned over us, but more correctly, God, who appeared in human nature, the Son, who did not lose the glory of divine properties through the incarnation of man, and did not, in the wise intention of salvation, despise human likeness." Such was the recklessness expressed by the stiff-necked Jews, like dogs, attacking the Lord and calling Him a mere man (John 10:33). The purpose of the incarnation of the Son of God is to destroy the sting of death and transform human nature to incorruption: “for, as the author says, iron, thrown into the flaming waves of fire, is immediately painted in the color of fire and reveals the power of the heat; thus the nature of the flesh, having received into itself the incorruptible and life-giving Word of God, no longer remained what it was, but finally appeared as a higher corruption.” In conclusion, the preacher speaks about the fulfillment of the mystery of our salvation by Jesus Christ, about the purpose and fruits of salvation, and finally offers a brief moral exhortation. Easter date. – δ ’, r. 784 – 789. Sermon of 430 (under no. 18 m). In the “profeoria” the preacher speaks about the greatness of the Feast and the church word appropriate to it, his readiness to preach and at the same time about his powerlessness in eloquence and about the true purpose of his word - p. 800 – 801. Pointing to the approach of the time of the holy holiday and the duty of the priests in this case, the preacher testifies that the time has come for the right-minded to be adorned with the virtues befitting the saints and to be enriched by the perfections of the gospel life. Proof of the moral obligation and usefulness of the above-mentioned feats, both from the concept of good in general, and from the examples of the farmer and sailor who actively rush to work and long labor when the time that is favorable for them (namely spring) arrives. Therefore, one must courageously and cheerfully go wherever the Lord commands (Jer. 46:34), that is, fight the pleasures and passions of the flesh in view of the moral height of the victory of the spirit over the flesh or evil and the reward for this victory. All this is illustrated by the example of treating a bodily illness. Therefore, just as it is cured by diet and abstinence, so the health of the soul is acquired through abstinence and fasting, as cleansing from all filth of the flesh and spirit. By the example of a husband exposed to danger to save his wife and children, and a faithful citizen laying down his life for the good of the fatherland, the preacher proves the need to fight for the good of the soul - to fight through the medium of labor. The hope of eternal life also prompts us to this: “because we are all strangers and strangers in this world, and the time of carnal life is extremely short, on the contrary, the continuation of the future life is endless,” and the reward awaiting the saints is high. – (Ps. 64:4; 1 Cor. 2:9).-a’, p. 801–805. The way in which those who loved God pleased Him was, firstly, by fasting, as can be seen from the example of David, who, when attacked by enemies, despite the military forces of his state, fasted and covered himself in sackcloth, was sad and shed tears (Ps. 34:13), and to whom for this God sent favor from above, triumph and victory in battles. The same can be seen from the example of Ananias, Azariah and Misail, who, despite the splendor of the royal Court, the abundance and luxury of dishes offered to them at the Persian court, loved fasting, like the mother of all beauty, and therefore defeated the fiery flame and rejoiced along with the heavenly powers, and for the earth-born they became mentors, as if convincing all creation to give the Creator due praises. “So, whoever decides to imitate the beauty of the virtues of the saints will, without a doubt, receive equal rewards... Christ, through the Holy Spirit, having entered our mind and heart, will undoubtedly tame the fierce flame of vicious desires and, having made us victors of the machinations of demons, will make us citizens of heaven.” The guarantee of this is the story of Ezra (2 books 8, 49 - 53) that the Jews, by fasting, asked for a safe path and help from above. Consequently, the preacher says, if we fast, God will deliver us from all evil, - β᾿, p. 805 – 809. Another virtue that should be added to fasting is prayer. “Both of these virtues,” says Cyril, live as if next to each other, and act very savingly when they are in union with each other; the absence of one of them makes the other less useful." The great power of prayer to God is visible from the raising of the hands of Moses to heaven during the war of the Israelites with the Amalekites (Ex. 17:9), namely: when they were extended to prayer, until then Israel was invincible, and when they fell, Amalek was able to do so, as well as from the actions of Samuel and the Israelites (fasting, prayer and burnt offerings) in Mizpah (1 Samuel 7, 5, 7 - 10) when, through the prayer of Samuel, thunder struck the foreigners who went to war, so that they, struck by fear, fled, and the Israelites defeated their conquerors by the power of fasting and prayer - ϒ, p. 809 - 813. Allegorical interpretation of the mentioned action of the Israelites in Mizpah (1 Samuel 7, 5, 7 - 10; - drawing water, pouring it on the ground and burning a lamb. “The Law commanded through Moses, says the preacher, to sacrifice oxen and dedicate turtle doves or doves to God (Lev. 5, 14), but nowhere did it command this kind sacrifices to pour water on the earth. What did the ancients and the prophet, who had the coveted knowledge of sacred and sacrificial commands, do with them? We affirm, Cyril answers, that he, as a prophet, having a mind filled with the Holy Spirit, certainly knew the venerable and great mystery of the incarnation of the Only Begotten and reasoned that the very image of the truth could save those in need; would have on oneself the power of salvation given by Christ." On this basis, the preacher considers the spilled water as a symbol of life, and the earth as a symbol of flesh: for the Word of God, by its nature - life, was clothed with earthly flesh. "And the life-giving Divinity and earthly humanity came, says the preacher, into a wonderful and incomprehensible unity. And so we see one of the two Emmanuel, who did not emerge from the boundaries of the Divinity to perceive the flesh, and did not refuse to become like us." The death endured by Emmanuel, in order to bring life to all, was foretold by Samuel through the slaughter of a lamb in the image of the true God, as Blessed John says (1:29). - "God and the Father commanded this mystery to be depicted before and through the wise Moses,” when the Israelites were in heavy slavery to the Egyptians (in which the liberating mission of Moses is briefly outlined), is depicted in Moses’ fulfillment of the following command of God (Exodus 4:8–9): “let the water of the river be poured out, and the water that you stir up from the river shall be blood on the water.” δ᾿, r. 813 – 816. It is to the source that the nature of God and the Father and the Son is likened, and sometimes the Father is called a river and water, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Holy Spirit. Having confirmed his thought with the words of Scripture (Jer. 2, 12 - 13; Isa. 66, 12; Ps. 35, 8 - 9, John 4, 10, 13 - 14, etc.), the preacher concludes: “so, the nature of the Father is very fittingly likened to the river, and to the water the Son born of Him by nature. This is water from the river and mixed with the earth: for the Word became flesh (John I, 14). And that the Son, having become man, wanted to die flesh for us, God showed this in the words: “And the water that was stirred up from the river shall be blood on the sustenance.” Blood here means nothing more than death, because until the Word was made flesh, until then there was no blood."... The reason for this death on the cross and the general economy for our salvation (Ps. 13:3); the appearance of the Savior on earth, the unbelief and brutality of the Jews, and despite the fact that the Lord accomplished our salvation and the fruits of salvation. A brief moral exhortation to the listeners, and the date of Easter. - e’, p. 816 – 820. Sermon 431 (no. 19). In the “prologue,” the preacher praises the zeal and wisdom of the listeners who had gathered for the sermon in large numbers, and admits the poverty of his words, for which he asks them for apology and leniency - pp. 320 - 321. Having announced the approach of the time of the holy holiday, the preacher excites the listeners to spiritual joy and sacred Triumph, for the sake of the great benefits of the Savior, who snatched us from the devil and delivered us from sin by tasting death, and in view of this charges them with the duty to walk according to the Gospel commandments, abandoning all laziness, slowness and carelessness. The divine word (John 3:13) and the example of the farmer and reaper, who diligently take advantage of the favorable time of the coming spring, encourage us to do this. Since our Easter is Christ, devoured for us, we must now cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit in order to celebrate the holy and all-pure holiday without condemnation. – a’, r. 821 – 24. Having reminded the listeners about the slaughter of the lamb by the Israelites in Egypt and about the command of Moses to eat this lamb (Ex. 18:8), and adding that we need to understand both in a spiritual sense (Rom. 7:14) and fulfill them in this spirit (Matthew 5:17-18), the preacher says; “Ours was also slain, called through faith to sanctification, the true lamb who took away the sin of the world. At the same time, we will create mental and truly sacred food, depicted in unleavened bread according to the law, but spiritually understood. Thus, sour dough is always accepted in the inspired Scripture as a symbol of depravity and sin (Matt. 14:6; 1 Cor. 5:7)." Thus, in order to have spiritual participation with Christ our Savior, we must, the preacher teaches, purify our thoughts, remove ourselves from defilement and flee sin. "But let everyone also eat bitter herbs, i.e. let him walk the path of bitter labors and let him put patience above all else. For the path to virtue is cruel, steep and requiring continuous effort, labor and sweat. This is what Christ commanded, instructing him to walk through narrow gates and thorny paths (Matt. 7, 13 - 14), since the broad path leads to sin." - From here the preacher proceeds to a discussion about the strong inclination and accessibility of human nature to sin - namely, about the law of sin, living in our flesh and cruelly fighting against the spirit, through carnal desires, which inclination God protects with the law (Isa. 8, 20) and the weapon of abstinence. Confirmation of this thought by the teaching of the Apostle Paul on sin living in the flesh, and by opposing the good inclinations of the spirit (Rom. 7: 14 - 15). At the same time, the author, using the figure of “bewilderment” (άποριά) and a dramatic turn of phrase, clarifies the meaning of these words of Paul, however, not revealing anything new, but only paraphrasing the word of the Apostle. The preacher reveals the further words of the apostle in the same way. Pavda about the law of sin (Rom. 7:18 - 21). However, says Cyril after the explanation, the Creator did not allow human nature to be easily destroyed by vicious pleasures. The law condemns such inclinations and wisely resists raging passions, showing the beauty of abstinence and virtue. Therefore, let us cleanse ourselves from everything that is evil, let us stop caring about food and drink (2 Cor. 7:1; Colossians 3:5), - for for this purpose the Son of God descended to earth and took on flesh from the Holy One. Mary the Mother of God, in order to kill sin in the bodily nature of man and raise it to godly and ineffable purity, as the divine Paul taught (Rom. 8, 3-4) - β ’, p. 824 – 829. It is necessary to add other types of piety to abstinence - mutual love, mercy and compassion for the poor, this is instilled in us by the Savior Himself and the Old Testament law (Luke b, 31; Deut. 15, 11). The dignity and greatness of this last virtue (love of poverty) from a moral point of view and from the side of the reward for it in the future life ("the light of love of poverty will accompany them"), as can be seen from the words of the Savior (Matthew 25, 34 - 36, 40). my children, for what will be left for them as an inheritance? My wealth, after all, is not particularly great.” “But, my dear,” Cyril objects to this, because while you are zealous in your love for children, you do not exclude yourself from the living and do not in the least give up peace and luxury. Therefore, it would not be bad to think about the future life and choose it as the measure of your disasters,” imitating in this case the foresight of sailors who stock up on everything in abundance when setting out to sea. “You will not offend your son with compassion for the poor; you will not upset your heir by freeing him from punishment and fire (James 3.2, etc.) - ϒ, 829–833. “To rejoice us with such a teaching, the Only Begotten Word of God became man," says the preacher and depicts, in view of this, the pitiful state of the human race before the coming of the Savior. “(People) lived not knowing the path of righteousness, and not even having knowledge of the true God, honoring the creature more than the Creator. " Then the Creator took pity on us, and in order to save us from the tyranny of Satan, he gave the law through Moses. But the law only revealed sin and was an exposer of our powerlessness, as the Apostle Paul teaches (Rom. 3, 19 - 20; 5, 20). The law itself is holy (Rom. 7, 7) and did not teach sin, but it was an exposer of the weakness of the law and an indicator of innate corruption (as the sun with its rays allows you to see the shame of garbage pits). weakness and uncontrollable inclination to sin, no one could fulfill the law and the whole world became guilty of God (Rom. 3:19), - the truth of God appeared, saving people through the faith of Jesus Christ (Titus 3:5; Rom. 3, 21 – 24); Therefore, that which is above every creature, the Word from God the Father, has become truly like us, a brief teaching about Whose Person (Christology) and is further expounded by the preacher. Salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ, its purpose and fruits. A brief moral exhortation to listeners with a list of virtues recommended by the preacher. Date of Easter, – δ᾿, r. 833 – 837 Sermon 432 (under number 20). Having said that the Old Testament served as a prototype of the truth of the Gospel, the preacher in God’s command to Moses to forge two silver trumpets to convene the assembly (Num. 10:2) sees an indication of preaching about the sacrament of the Savior in the churches, and the “forgedness” of the trumpets showed that the opening (δήλωσις) of the sacraments of the Savior belonged to the future tense: “for the blows of the hammer always give, as it were, the longest stretch; the silver of the pipes indicated the brilliance and purity of the word about the sacrament of the Savior.” Further, since the control of the trumpets was entrusted to the priests (Num. 8:10), the preacher sees in this the natural privilege of the priestly class to proclaim through preaching about the sacrament of Christ, to show the flock under their control the rules of pious life and to excite the flock to courageous deeds against the enemies of the truth and glory of Christ and to celebrate holidays in purity. God Himself commanded to do this through Moses (Numbers 10:8-10). But the weapon of the saints, according to the word of the Savior, must be spiritual, consisting not in visible and sensory things, but in the power of the Spirit, righteousness and reality (Eph. 6:1i-15). It is the sword of the Spirit - the word of God - that can frighten and defeat every enemy who raises his horn high and slanderes lies against God. "Therefore, says the preacher, let us use against them (the enemies) the sacred and irreproachable preaching of the truth, let us sing songs of victory to the One who became like us for our sake and even appeared in the form of a servant." With these words, the preacher moves on to the doctrine of the incarnation and Christology. The Word of God even after the incarnation remains God, "but the inventors of wicked dogmas, says Cyril, are the enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18) - they revile the birth according to the flesh of the Only Begotten; they say that St. The virgin gave birth to an untrue God in the flesh, while St. The evangelist proclaims: The Word became flesh (John. 1, 14) - they claim that the Word only entered into man in order to place the Savior in the ranks of the prophets, as a God-bearing man (θεοϕόρος), so that He had nothing more in Himself than just one similarity with us, for the Almighty God also dwells in us (1 John 4, 12). So, what is special in Christ, compared to all other Christians, asks Cyril, “if He was only a man, bearing the Almighty God dwelling within Himself, and not in fact and in truth the Son of God the Father and the true God together with the flesh? For He suffered birth according to the flesh and remains God. But such legal thinking cannot be tolerated by the mind of heretics.” They further assert that the name of sonship is attributed to Christ as if by communion and by grace (έν μεθέξει χαί χατά χαριν), they reduce Him to a simple man, alienating the Word of God from the latter and barely attributing to him only a simple contact (i.e. with God), similar to theirs, as if in equality dignity." But leaving the heretics to err, Cyril teaches: “we will adhere to the right and unperverted path of faith, confessing that the Word, being God, became flesh, that is, man, taking on not a soulless and mindless body, but, on the contrary, an animated and rational one, so that, having become like our brothers in everything, except for sin, we could offer Himself to the Father in the stench of a spiritual fragrance for us.” Cyril further confirms both this and related theological thoughts with the words of Scripture (Rom. 14:9; Philipp. 2:10) and denounces heretics with it (1 Tim. 4:2; 1:19; Psalm 63:8; Psalm 80:16). – a’, r. 837–844. In the ancient Amalek, who fought against Israel (at the same time, the very history of the event is outlined), the preacher sees a contemporary cursed Amalek (that is, of course, Nestorius), “fighting against the glory of the Savior and attempting to subvert the power of His sacrament. But, having called the elect from all Israel, our Lord Jesus Christ took up arms and won and “with destruction he will destroy the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” - β ‘, p. 844. “So, let us,” says the preacher, celebrate the holiday, for we have lost the power of the enemy, Satan has been driven out, the church has been cleansed, and no one will no longer talk idlely that Emmanuel is not truly God, on the contrary, everyone confesses His glory and with silent lips lifts up praises to Him." The greatness of the work accomplished by Jesus Christ, who tamed Satan, took away the power of death from the latter and destroyed sin, prompts us to do this. the sacrament of economy and salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ. In view of this, our moral duty is to be washed from all filthiness of soul and body, to appear holy in both body and spirit, and, as the Apostle advises (Col. 3:5), to put to death our desires on earth - fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil lust." This can be achieved through abstinence and fasting (1 Cor. 3:5), “the source of all decency, the mother of sanctification and the giver of the highest blessing. But by subjecting the body to fasting, let us strictly strive in the morals of good living, so that we may be whole and not lacking in anything. – ϒ, r. 844 – 848. The cruelty and unbelief of the Jews against the Lord Jesus Christ, who appeared in the flesh; their blasphemy and slander against Him and, finally, the tradition of crucifixion. The death of the Savior and its fruits. Resurrection from the dead and Ascension into heaven. In conclusion, a brief moral exhortation is offered and the time of the upcoming Easter is determined. – δ ’, r. 848 – 849. Sermon 433 (number 21). At the beginning of the sermon, the preacher expresses his sincere desire and zeal, combined with pleasantness, to speak before the listeners with his usual word at the present announcement of the holy holiday. But the serious illness that has tormented him until now does not allow him to fully realize his intention, and therefore he decides to say what he can, especially since his flock is in sound concepts, preserves the wise prudence of the holy fathers and adheres to the incessantly heard instructions of the best teachers - a’, p. 849 – 52. Pointing to the onset of the happy and saving time of the holy holiday, the preacher invites the listeners to lift up in a general, sacred and unanimous assembly songs of thanksgiving to Christ, who redeemed us from the legal oath (Gal. 3:13). The history of the "legal oath" since the fall of people; humiliating and hopeless slavery to the devil; love for mankind and the ineffable mercy of God, who sent us our own Son as our Savior and Redeemer. The doctrine of the 0 Son, or the Word of God and Christology. Here, having said that the Savior was like his brothers in everything, except for sin, the preacher says: “That is why he endures hunger and fasts at a certain time, in order to show us an example of a sinless life and the beginning of salvation. Consequently, we must precede the time of the holy holiday with fasting and a life pleasing to God, in order to hear the Lord’s blessed response to us (Matthew 25:9). But it is not the Jewish fast (Isa. 58:5, 7) that we must undertake, but its bright beauty, combined with an honest life, a true fast, to the panegyric praise of which the preacher comes. – β ’, r. pag. 852 – 853. The cruelty of the Jews, exposed even by the prophets (Isa. 1:4), was especially expressed in their attitude towards the Savior, when they, “not heeding either the extraordinary deeds performed by the Savior, or reverence for the divine signs of His power, said: “About Beelzebub the prince of demons he will cast out demons (Matthew 12:24). A Polemical Proof of the Messianic Dignity of Jesus Christ Against the Jews. “When have you seen, the preacher asks the Jew, fulfilled that which was predicted of old, then the eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf will hear, etc. (Is. 35: 5-6)? Do you not wait day after day for the coming of Emmanuel and for what you now see accomplished? Do you close your eyes and stop your ears from hearing about the miracles of Christ?! Therefore, you bear a worthy reward for the swap of sins. So, you no longer have any signs of worship of God, no city, no festive sacrifices; but you are wandering, scattered throughout the whole universe,” which was predicted by the prophets (Bar. 3:10), the treacherous betrayal of Jesus Christ by the Jews to death, despite the greatest benefit He brought to people (“incorruptibility”) and teaching, - ϒ’, p. 853–856. In view of such good deeds of the Savior, it is necessary to thank Him (Ex. 15:11) and exalt Him with solemn hymns, containing the right faith in the Holy Trinity, and also to embellish one’s life with deeds of virtues, the types of which are then shown by the preacher. Easter date. – δ᾿, r. 856 – 857. Sermon 434 (under number 22). In the “prologue” the author rejects his ambitious goal - to shine with oratorical eloquence, and points to the true reason for the appearance of his word or news; this, on the one hand, is the fulfillment of an ancient custom (to precede the holiday with a sermon), and on the other, an explanation of the Holy Scriptures - p. 857. Having pointed out the duty of the clergy to guide and teach their flock (Hos. 5:1), the preacher notices the subject of his church word, befitting a celebration celebrated for the glory of the Savior: this is fasting (Joel 1:14), which cannot be compared with anything in the world (Prov. 16:26; Matt. 16:16), and deeds of piety, accompanied by courage, firmness of heart and patience. To prove the last thought, the preacher gives the example of horse trainers. Just as it is not enough for them to resort to a bridle alone, but one must teach the horse to make the correct rhythm with its legs, to run quickly and beautifully; so we, in addition to practicing in labor, must also know the way of what we should do and what not to do. “Precisely, we use, says Cyril, all-purifying fasting, as a bridle that restrains thought from deviating to the worse and keeps us from unreasonable excitement of the flesh. The help of fasting can extend to such extent. But those who zealously try to foresee what they should do and what they should not do, obviously need to be armed with every kind of virtue. For deeds done with the highest intelligence are glorious and worthy of admiration," as the Apostle Paul teaches (1 Tim. 4:7-8). But fasting alone, consisting of non-eating, in the absence of any other virtue, is not pleasing to God. The proof of this is the Israelites, who fasted in this way (Is. 58:3-5), but were not heard by God. Those who fast everything it is less permissible to have one’s own desires, i.e., inclinations to the vicious – a, p. 857 – 861. It is our duty to present to the Lord, who became man for our sake and called us his brothers, to offer spiritual sacrifices and thanksgiving, for material sacrifices are displeasing to God (Isa. 1:12; Ps. 49:13). God especially requires us to make sacrifices on holidays (Num. 28:2). But what should our “offerings” consist of, if God rejects the “shadow” of the law, since the law was a prototype and shadow of the truth of the Gospel, and therefore lost its power and was abolished with the advent of the new, Gospel law. But the Savior said at the same time that He did not come to destroy the law (Matthew 5:17-18). If so, "then it is necessary, says Cyril, to conclude that the fulfillment of the ancient law is confirmed in the New Testament." - "So, how will we perform the sacrifices required by the law? Only when considering, He answers, that the instructions of Moses served as images and pre-indications of spiritual extraordinary phenomena. So in ancient times we sacrificed a calf; but see in it one of the believers, sacrificing himself to God in the stench of fragrance” (Rom. 12:1). – β᾿, r. 861 – 864. Having further posed the question; “What kind of mental and spiritual image of sanctification should we have?”, the preacher cites the law of Moses (Lev. 1, 2 – 9) about sacrificing a calf to God and reveals what he meant to designate this image. “Since the calf was a strong animal, we must approach God with strength of mind; he was male, for the feminine and effeminate are not characteristic of the character of saints (Ps. 30:23). The animal brought before the very door of the tabernacle was slain before the Lord; so we too, when we come to church, are rewarded with the blessed highest contemplation (Ps. 85:16; 33:16). The calf was slaughtered, and its blood was shed on the altars; so we, having mortified our lives on earth, die to the world and are transferred to a holy and blameless life (Ps. 115:15; Gal. 2:19; Rom. 6:3–4). “The death of the calf, therefore, indicates dying to the world; the shedding of blood on the altar means the sacrifice of a holy soul or life: for blood is a symbol of the soul or life. Skinning an animal means, according to the teaching of Paul (Heb. 4:12), nakedness (i.e. souls), so there is and cannot be anything in us hidden from the divine mind, for He penetrates to the members and brains, and this is precisely indicated by cutting the body into members. It was commanded to coat the womb and legs of the calf; and this is explained to us by the Savior Himself in words; “blessed ones, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8). The feet served as an image of the path in business, precisely as an image of the path to virtue (Proverbs 4:12) and zealous fulfillment of the commandments of the Lord." Moreover, the preacher offers a brief teaching about the Face of the Savior, - ϒ', pp. 864 - 869. Polemics and denunciation of the Jews, who were once chosen by God as His inheritance, but did not accept the Savior. The brutal and wicked attacks of the Jews on the Only Begotten Son of God, who became man and became incarnate. Defending against them the divine dignity of our Lord Jesus Christ on the basis of His life, greatest works, signs and wonders. "Marvel, says Cyril to the Jew, at the multitude of believers exceeding the number; pay attention, therefore, to the attitude of David who sang about Him" (Ps. 85:9). The power of service according to the law was predicted to end in the Old Testament. - The betrayal of Jesus Christ by the Jews to death on the cross and His three-day resurrection. The fruits and results of the Savior's death on the Cross, His Resurrection and Ascension to heaven. - In conclusion, the preacher offers a brief moral exhortation to the listeners and announces the time for celebrating Easter - δ ’, p. Sermon of 435 (under number 23). In the preface, the preacher expresses the true purpose of his sermon - to benefit the listeners and guide them to a good life - and not to gain oratorical glory. – pag. 873. In the words of David: “Come, let us rejoice in the Lord" (Psalm 94:1), St. Cyril sees an invitation to the most pure feast of Christ the Savior - an invitation addressed to the pagans, Jews, heretics and those devoted to vice. Through the sacred sermon, both are inspired to stop the errors and sins inherent in everyone. Thus, the pagans must stop worshiping the creature, Jews must free themselves from their unbelief in Christ, heretics - from perverted faith and false teachers, who have fallen into the ditch of sin - to get rid of their destruction and snare - The difference in the joy of the carnivore and the ascetic: the first does not run from any vice. praise the Lord." We must put off the old man, which is decaying in the lusts of the flesh, and put on the new man, who has been transformed in Christ for newness of life. – a’, r. 873 – 877. The law and its propaedeutic meaning in relation to the sacrament of Christ. “The Law of Moses,” says the preacher, if it is thought spiritually, corresponds to the teaching of the Gospel, for it leads to the mystery of Christ” (John 5:46). This law proclaimed that the Savior would come not to the Jews alone, but to all nations, which was symbolically indicated in the slaughter of the sacrificial lamb on the left side of the altar, facing north. It is “Judea, explains Cyril, is a country of the south; the north and extending beyond the sea, as they say, is a country of barbarians. Therefore, the Jewish lamb was slaughtered not without significance for the country of the pagans,” as can be seen from the words of the psalmist (35, 38) and the prophet. Zechariah (2, 10 – 11). “So Christ was sent to bring both nations into one new man and to destroy the mediastinum of the fence between them.” All this, i.e., the fact that the best of the Jews would believe in the incarnate Word of God, and the other part of them would offend Him with unbelief, and that the pagans would be called through faith - all this was predicted in the Old Testament - β᾿, p. 877 - 880. For this purpose, the author cites the story of the 2nd book of Samuel (5, 1 - 3) about the reign of David over all the tribes of Israel and gives an allegorical interpretation of all the details of this story in the sense of the mystery of the incarnation and its circumstances. Thus, the tribes of Israel recognized themselves as the flesh and bone of David; Likewise, those who have come to faith in Christ confess that, being God by nature, He became man, and thus becomes, as it were, His flesh and bone by affinity with Him in human properties. David, even during the reign of Saul, was “leading and destroying Israel”; so Christ, even before His incarnation, as God, had power over everyone, providing for human affairs and so on. David reigned over Israel according to the good pleasure and will of God the Father (2 Ts. 5:2), and so did the Savior (Matt. 16:16; John 1:49; Ps. 2:6). David made a covenant with the elders of Israel in Hebron. What does Hebron mean? This word means unity. In Christ everything became one, and the higher was united with the lower, and the lower with the higher. The fleshly descendants of Israel and the ancient worshipers of idols entered into unity and unanimity of faith. In the story about the Jebusite and the blind and lame (2 Ts. 5, 6 - 8), the preacher again sees an indication of the gospel events. “There were blind and lame,” says Cyril, “and we remember what Christ (Matt. 15:14) and David said about the scribes and Pharisees” (Ps. 17:46). “So, they rejected Christ, they could neither walk the right path, nor carry mental and divine light in their hearts and minds, and therefore they fell (perished) with the sword.” And that the place of the Israelis hostile to him was taken by many pagans who recognized Christ as Lord and King,” this is clear from Hiram’s embassy to David (2 Ts. 5, 11). “Hiram was a foreigner and an idolater from the flock of the lost, but he built the church of the Lord. Thus the Church of Christ was erected, and not in just one place or country, but throughout the whole of heaven. – The ark, carried by David to his city (2 Ts. 6, 12), meant those under the law and shadow. These latter were once blind and lame, but when they, having accepted faith, worship him, then they, along with us, will be admitted into the house of David, or Christ. - After this, the preacher again invites the listeners to joy in the Lord and resolves the bewilderment of how the cross and death of the Savior can be for us the subject of solemn remembrance and celebration. If someone, having given himself up to death, did not come to life, says the preacher, then no one would celebrate; but if, despite the opportunity not to suffer, Christ suffered and then rose from the dead, then doesn’t this serve as a source of all joy? – The accomplishment of our salvation by Jesus Christ, its purpose and fruits. – ϒ', r. 880 – 84. A short moral exhortation to the listeners. – Easter date of the current year. – δ ’,р. 884 – 885 Sermon of 436 (under number 24). At the beginning of the conversation, the preacher calls on the listeners to joy and joy in the glory of the Savior, and proves that even the ancient prophets (David, 17, 42; Zechariah 2, 8 - 11) invited people to the highest joy, calling our greatest Christian holiday a blessed and most welcome day of salvation - a’, p. 885 – 888. The reason why we now need to especially triumph and rejoice: "having destroyed sin and torn out, as it were, at the very root, the evil that had grown out of it, that is, death," the tyrannical dominion of which over people is represented by the preacher. Therefore, in view of the almost arrived time of the holiday, "to wash ourselves from the filth of sins and to be cleansed from the filth of soul and body. The best way to do this is through fasting and patience in deeds of piety (Heb. 12:1). God Himself imposes on us the obligation to be holy (Lev. 11:44), so as not to deprive us of spiritual joy. A clear confirmation of this is the parable of those called to the supper (Matthew 22:12), when the one who appeared there in indecent clothing was expelled. Here, by the way, the preacher solves the question: why was the entry of those inappropriately not immediately prohibited? the triumph of clothing? - “The Savior, says Cyril, calls everyone through faith and wants to give everyone a share in His highest bounties, and therefore everyone enters without hindrance: for the grace of faith extends to all of us. But some, having brought along with faith the splendor of good deeds and virtues, will enter with the Bridegroom and take part in the holy and mental celebration; others, having brought nothing but faith, and still covered with impurities, these will be decisively expelled from the sacred wedding supper: for they entered without having wedding clothes." - The best means for beautification is, as said above, fasting. - β᾿, pp. 888-889. Confirmation by faith in Christ is the source of eternal life (John 17:3). Hence the obligation to maintain a right, simple and uncorrupted faith in God: “researchers and critics, says Cyril, are not very tolerated; for it is not harmless to interpret much of what is given by faith." Condemnation by the words of Scripture of those who subject saving faith to the utmost scrutiny. - Our duty in our very deeds is to reveal the light of the divine knowledge that has shone upon us. (Jer. 48:10). We must do this with all diligence and courage. The image of a warrior serves as an example for us. - Since the law was powerless to justify us; then God and the Father granted us justification by faith in Christ. From here the preacher moves on to the doctrine of the incarnation and Christology, which mainly proves the divine dignity of Jesus Christ, despite His human image, - proven on the basis of His extraordinary works, or miracles (John 10:37; Matt. 4:11; Mark 6:10). Unbelief, savagery and recklessness of the Jews who rebelled against the Savior and demanded from Pilate that the Lord be crucified for “that he had created for himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). But He truly was like that. - ϒ', pp. 889 - 896. Polemical, against the Jews, proof of the divine, or messianic dignity of Jesus Christ in the words of the apostle. Paul about dividing the tabernacle into two parts (Heb. 9, 2, – 3; 8). "The first tabernacle, says Cyril, having (in itself) standing, meant the power of service according to the law, which did not allow anyone into the "Holy of Holies". Only for us Christ opened this holy and longed-for entrance, "that is, access to the truth. - The death of Jesus Christ (against the Jews, in a polemical spirit, with the denunciation of their treachery) and its saving significance for believers. "He (Christ) allowed his own flesh to taste death, supposedly to give the earthly power to prevail over death and corruption." Comparison of the Savior's death on the cross and its fruits with the slaughter of the Passover lamb by the Jews in Egypt and through this (slaughter) deliverance from slavery and destruction, we were given the hope of eternal blessed life. "Having clothed ourselves with the tunic of incorruptibility. e. Christ, we will remain incorruptible.” This was prefigured by the stock of manna, which was generally perishable, but which, having been placed before the Lord in a golden vessel, did not spoil (Ex. 16:33-34). “So, when Christ embraced us like a golden sheath of manna, then we too will remain incorruptible under God’s watching over us. Removed from the face of God due to the crime of Adam and being outside the supervision of God, we fell into corruption," etc. - A brief moral admonition to the listeners in view of all the good deeds God has shown to us. Date of Easter. - δ᾿, pp. 896 - 901. Sermon of 437 (numbered 25). Having invited the listeners to joy in the Lord, the preacher finds out the reason for this joy and triumph - the descent to earth of the Only Begotten Word of God and the bestowal of the highest blessings on our nature. “Therefore,” the preacher continues, the Savior Himself and the Lord of all reveals the power and meaning of His coming, as in the image in the parable of the wedding supper (Matthew 22:24). Spiritual kinship is compared here with carnal marriage." In view of this, the preacher exhorts true lovers of leisure to clothe themselves and be adorned with virtues, and not to rejoice in the world, that is, not to indulge in luxury and all kinds of wicked pleasures, for which severe punishment awaits (Gal. 6, 8; Am. 63 4 - 7) and from the love of which the beloved disciple of Christ warns us (1 John. 2:15; John 4:4) By moving away from worldly passions and celebrating in purity, we will receive a great reward (Matt. 25:54; 1 Cor. 8:9). “Although for God, says Cyril, it would be quite possible to punish us according to our sins, but God rather only frightens us than punishes us according to our deserts. – a’, r. 901 – 905. The law given to the Israelites as a guide for good; the deviation of the Israelites into disobedience and their reproof by the prophets for this (Hos. 4:1–3; Micah 2:1–2; Isa. 5:8–9), a call to repentance (Jer. 3:12–13). But since the Jews suffered from unrepentance, God finally turned his wrath on them, although now not according to the extent of their sins, but rather mixing mercy with wrath (Amos 4:6-9), for it is not fire that brings down on those who have sinned, but only terrorizes for now, reducing only the food supply of life, and as if exhorting them through this to leave a lawless life. – From the Israelis, the preacher goes to his flock and says: “For some time now, rains have begun to fall rarely among us, although time demands their abundance; The rivers have become shallow, the labors of farmers are in vain; the fields are empty; trees have no fruit. Terrible and painful bodily illnesses developed. Hence - grief, sobbing and crying, a shortage of men in cities and villages." - β᾿, pp. 905 - 909. The preacher explores, daleph, the cause of these disasters. "It (disaster), he says, has its root in evil and manifold sin, hence misfortunes arise." Therefore, in order to gain the mercy of God again, we need to give up sins and turn to something better. Then again God will reveal to us the source of blessings (Hos. 2:21) and give us an abundance of wheat, wine and oil. In view of this, the preacher calls on the listeners to repentance (Ps. 94:6), to move away from laziness and carelessness. This is all the more necessary for us, since the Son of God Himself appeared to us from heaven for our salvation. - The doctrine of the Son of God and the Face of Jesus Christ in connection with His redemption of people. A brief moral admonition to the flock and the date of Easter. Sermon of 438 (under number 26). Having reminded the listeners of the onset of the joyful Easter celebration, the preacher calls on them to pre-prepare themselves for this holiday through feats of courage, patience and fasting. Laziness is most inappropriate here: “for the best deeds are unattainable for it, just as the rewards prepared by God are unattainable. Virtue loves labors irrigated by volume; the path leading to it is hard and precipitous, - it makes it smooth and easy for those who have undertaken feats of patience... Virtue can be the chosen one." According to the law, the struggle of a zealot for life must be persistent, for it is waged with the devil (EPH. 6:10 - 13). The idea that the struggle must be persistent can be understood from the example of warlike citizens who are constantly ready for battle with enemies. Likewise, champions of piety, having put on spiritual armor, emerge victorious over numerous enemies. “Christ himself supports those who love Him in battle and stirs them up in courage.” Therefore, you need to cleanse yourself of all filth, etc. “Then we will be true lovers of leisure and, adorned with the splendor of praiseworthy virtues, we will have the opportunity to enter the “Holy of Holies” of moral perfection, where not everyone, by sanctification and sonship alone, has access, but only those who have washed away the dirt of sin and carnal passions.” This is clearly stated in what is written in the book of Exodus (30, 17 – 21). - a, r. 913 – 917. The said law of Moses commanded those who wished to enter the Holy of Holies to wash themselves; those who disobeyed were punished by death. Therefore, everyone who wants to get closer to God must perform spiritual cleansing, which, according to the clear teaching of St. Jeremiah (4:14), should consist in cleansing the heart from wickedness, namely from sorcery, carnality, covetousness, slander, perjury, deception, especially from the distortion of accurate and genuine faith. “And to the apostate way of thinking, the preacher notes, some of those who have taken the name of Christians are devoted." This apostasy is nothing more than polytheism and idolatry, so strongly condemned by God (Deut. 6:4, 5, 8). The enormity of the punishment sent by God for such a deed is visible from the divine Scriptures (Ezek. 8: 7 - 12; 17 - 19). Thus, the corrupt, arrogant, wicked and apostate Israelites were finally subjected to the most severe punishment of all: they died, destroyed by the sword of war, fell into slavery to their enemies and were subjected to all kinds of disasters. “Therefore, says the preacher, we must take off the mask of hypocrisy and double-belief, and adorn ourselves not only with external embellishments; on the contrary, it is necessary to nourish true love for God and strive with all effort and energy for piety and unshakable faith. - The vileness of idolatry and the severity of the punishment for it (Ezek. 2, 27; Heb. 10, 31). The disgusting and vile nature of hypocrisy, as is clear from the example of traitorous warriors. - “So the words just spoken show that the source of war is double-mindedness... But they also teach where obstacles to other gods arise for us. So God does not send rain; from which it becomes impossible either to plow the land or to indulge (in general) in the labors of agriculture; Cities and countries are oppressed by hunger and thirst. This was exactly what happened during the reign of Ahab over the 10 tribes in Samaria. Here the author relates in detail the account of the wickedness and idolatry of Ahab and the Israelites; about the terrible lack of rain that struck them for this according to the word of Elijah the prophet, and finally, “about their repentance and God sending them his bounties, that is, abundance in food and drink. - β᾿, p. 917–924. Therefore, we need to renounce vice, adorn ourselves with deeds of good behavior, maintain purity of faith and firm love for the Almighty God, who gave up his Son for us. The doctrine of the Son of God, the Person of Jesus Christ, the necessity or reason for the incarnation of the Only Begotten Word of God and the salvation accomplished by Him. The Savior accomplished two good things for us: He abolished death, which He Himself did not create and which came from sin, and secondly, He appeared as a merciful High Priest to all of us. Proof and disclosure of the last position. It is “God is good by nature,” and this was expressed in the fact that “while the law of Moses, given through the angels, put to death those who fell into crime (Heb. 19:28), Christ meanwhile appeared as a merciful bishop. He did not demand the punishment of earthly beings for sin, but in His goodness justified everyone.” – Christ did not destroy the law, but only removed the shadow from the letter of the law and changed the images to worship and service in spirit and truth (Matt. 5, 17 – 18).. Understanding this idea from the actions of painters who do not destroy the originally sketched shadows and strokes on the canvas, but only give them a brighter and more expressive look. - Unbelief of Israel, despite the predictions of the prophets about Christ. – The divine dignity of Jesus Christ (against the Jews), evident from His extraordinary deeds. The death of Jesus Christ and its saving fruits for us; future coming of the Lord. – ϒ', r. 924–928. Sermon of 439 (under number 27). Calling the faithful to festive celebration and glorification of the Savior, the preacher compares the deliverance of people from the power of Satan accomplished by Jesus Christ with the ancient liberation from Egyptian slavery. This deliverance encourages believers to glorify and thank the Author of the salvation of the human race, since He led us to God and the Father, to live the time with fear of life (1 Peter 1:17-19) and to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, - a, p. 928 – 929. Piety and good morals are never untimely or superfluous, but they are especially decent and appropriate at the present time. Proof of this last thought is provided by the examples of the farmer and the navigator, who take up their work with all their energy when the time itself calls them to the activity characteristic of each of them. Laziness is always dangerous and leads to destruction, for it is written: “Woe to those who do the work of the Lord carelessly” (Jer. 48:10). But if, therefore, for sloppy and careless service to God, a bitter punishment awaits us, then how great is this punishment for those who completely refuse to fulfill this service? Therefore, you need to heed the advice of the Ap. Peter (1 Peter 1, 13 – 16). Just as brave and experienced people are chosen to be close to earthly kings; Likewise, only those distinguished by the glory of virtues will be close friends of the All-Holy God. “Nothing from the objects and manifestations of real life can compare with the greatness and importance of divine service—and above all, no wealth and luxury in table and clothing. Refined dishes bring mental and physiological harm, for example, stomach catarrh. Divine John warns us against love for the world and its blessings (1 John 2:15-16). The lust of the flesh, mentioned by John, is the satiety of the belly, the pleasure of foods and dishes with their ever-present companion - uncleanness. Pleasures and pleasures of combing are the colorful decoration of a costume, the brightness of colors and the gloss of material, which delights wealth. The highest degrees of rank and the highest peaks of honor and glory are called worldly pride. – β ’, r. 529–533. The preacher further proves the uselessness of wealth in the words of Job (1:21), ap. Paul (1 Tim. 6:7) and Jesus Christ (Matthew 6:20), and the example of the rich man of the Gospel (Luke 12:16 – 20). "Oh, an amazing thing! exclaims the preacher, relaying the Gospel story about the rich man: "the rich man is in difficulty, worried, taking on a burden that is heavier than others. What will I do? says the rich man is attributed to the cries of poverty: where will I gather my good things? And in fact: the rich man has a lot of goods; he was pleased with the fields laden with fruits, the countless number of reapers in the fields, and so on... So, rich man, you have everything in abundance, but your life is cut short, and who will get everything you have prepared? – Having said that the Heavenly Father is merciful, Cyril continues: “As a child-loving Father, seeing his image perfectly imprinted in his own son, he does not rejoice over his brainchild and is even more inflamed with love for him; so God, who loves virtue, when he sees that the soul has imprinted in heaven the image of His characteristic goodness, does not leave this deed unrewarded." The high dignity of mercy (Tov. 4, - 224 - 11; Matt. 18, 82 - 33). - But for the fullness of a virtuous life, other virtues are also needed: justice, temperance, meekness, humility, gentleness, peacefulness. Comparison of one decorated with these virtues with a painting dotted with multi-colored paints - ϒ', p. 933 – 936. The disastrous state of people before the coming of the Redeemer under the dominion of sin. Vozhestveyanof mercy in people, expressed, according to the teachings of Bishop. Paul, in the message to the earth of the prophets and, finally, the Only Begotten Son of God (Heb. 1, 1 - 4). The teaching about the Person of the Accomplisher of our salvation: Divine dignity, equality with the Father, incarnation, image of union with the flesh: “He became (i.e., the Son of God) man, and did not enter into man or unite man to Himself, as some say idle talk.” The necessity of the appearance of God in the flesh: “for it was not possible for anyone to look at the naked and pure glory of the Divinity (Exodus 33:20). If it is impossible with bodily eyes to bear the brilliance of a sunbeam, then would it be possible to bear the Son if He appeared to us in the naked glory of the Divine”? – The purpose of the Savior’s coming is “to call Israel in grace through faith and before others.” But the unfortunate Israelites did not recognize the Son of God because of His bodily appearance, although this was predicted to them by the prophets (Isa. 7:14; Ps. 49:1-3). Words about the image of the union of God with the flesh. Suffering and Death on the Cross of the Savior: “he suffered voluntarily in his own flesh, remaining impassive by his own nature. “However, we assimilate suffering to Him, for His own body suffered in order to free us from suffering (Isa. 53:6). The fruits of the Death on the Cross, resurrection, ascension and future coming. – δ '', p. 936 – 941. In view of this, a brief exhortation is to cleanse yourself of sin and beautify yourself with virtues. Easter date. – e’, r. 941. Sermon of 440 (under no. 28 m). In the “introduction” the preacher shows that the purpose of the conversation is to edify the listeners, and not to gain praise for himself. Having then reminded the listeners of the approaching time of the holy holiday of Easter and the onset of its harbinger, i.e., fasting, the preacher calls on the listeners and flock to cleanse themselves of vices and to live a good life. The author finds confirmation of this in the order of Moses (Deut. 16:16) about men visiting a sacred place on three holidays: unleavened bread, weeks and tabernacles. Reasons or reasons for the establishment of these holidays in the life of the Jewish people and the manner in which the holidays themselves are celebrated. – “The Feast of Unleavened Bread is the occasion of the liberation of the descendants of Israel...; the Feast of Weeks was celebrated during the wheat harvest...; the feast of tabernacles, or “skinopegia” of Wesflo, was celebrated after all the work had been completed, when all the various harvests were gathered into the granaries...; Then they went out with palm branches, as well as with bunches of poplars and willows, and, having thus set up tents, freely and lordly spent the whole seven days in them.” The allegorical meaning of all these holidays for us. - a, r. 941 – 945. Revealing the allegorical meaning of the holidays. “Pharaoh served as an image of the devil's cruelty; he oppressed the descendants of Israel with clay and clay... the inventor of sin, Satan, the thief of the highest glory, commanded the inhabitants of the earth to worship himself and kept them in this vain enslavement through carnal desires, as if with clay and clay... But Christ shone to the world, through Whom and in Whom all things redeemed and taken through His slaughter from the power of the ancient enslaver. But if we are all redeemed in Christ, then “let us sow to ourselves in righteousness, let us reap the fruit of life” (Is. 10:2). – β ’, r. 945. The preacher relates the last words to the Feast of Weeks. “Having, he says, achieved the greatest glory and been adorned with every kind of virtue, having collected in our souls the wealth of a varied harvest and concluding it, as it were, in granaries, then we will be imprisoned in the highest tabernacles, receive heavenly pleasures from God and will lead a life free from all sweat and labor. The image of this is the third holiday of Kushchfi.” – ϒ, page 945. Next, the author finds out why God established these three seasons in which every male sex had to appear before the face of God. “The female sex,” says Cyril, is always weaker in both thought and deed; the masculine in both respects is distinguished by superiority and advantage. Therefore, the masculine sex, as filled with the strength of spirit and thought, is awarded greater honor, appears before God and is awarded His gaze. Further, what is revered by God is completely despised by the devil and his angels; “for he approaches every saint and ferociously attacks those armed with spiritual courage." Such hatred of the devil for the male sex in the spiritual sense is visible from the order of Pharaoh (Ex. 1:16) about the male newborn sex, namely, that he should be thrown into the river immediately after birth; the female sex, according to the order of Pharaoh, was left alive. - Therefore, it is necessary to courageously approaching God through purification from sin, or holiness, - ϒ', p. 948 – 949. The need for cleansing from the dirt of vice is visible from the words of God to Moses, when he, while tending his flocks on Mount Horeb, saw a burning bush and wanted to get closer to the nthm (Ex. 3:5). – But what image of sin is meant by boots? asks Cyril and answers: “When Moses lived in Egypt, a custom was established there so that those who had carelessly shod in the skins of dead animals would not be allowed into the sacred places of idols. They considered this nothing more than desecration. Therefore, the Almighty God, in order to show that those who have not purified themselves cannot approach Him, calls, as if applying the custom of the Egyptians, the sacred Moses to spiritual purification.” Therefore, those who serve God must withdraw from dead works, that is, bodily pleasures, revelry. drunkenness, bribery, greed, gossip, arrogance, etc., which is also instilled by the Apostle John (1 John 2, 15 - 17). - δ᾿, p. 949–952. “The path to such a life,” says the preacher, was predicted by the ancient law of Moses, which through the image and shadow showed us Emmanuel. But in the purest form the truth has shone forth only now," with the incarnation of the Only Begotten Word of God. The necessity of the incarnation. The treachery of the Israelites. The divine dignity of the incarnate, and the methods of knowledge of God in general. The purpose of the appearance of the Creator in the world: "not for this (the Creator appeared), says Cyril, so that, having destroyed the real earth, now to open to us another and new one, not in order to create other heavens, destroying those now existing, or to produce something new and unexpected in the solar cycle and re-create visible nature anew; but in order for us, who have risen to the power of the devil and have been subjected to corruption as a result of sin, to be transformed into incorruption, to be revealed as holy and blameless."... The unbelief and stiff-neckedness of the Jews, despite the Old Testament prophetic predictions about the Savior. Death and Resurrection of the Savior. Fruits. Ascension to heaven and future coming. - δ᾿, p. 952–956. A moral exhortation to the flock with a list of virtues with which they should adorn themselves in view of the approaching Easter holiday. Easter date. – έ, r. 956 – 957. Sermon of 441 (under number 29). In the introduction, the preacher, pointing out the true purpose of his conversation (not applause and praise, but communicating something morally useful to the listeners.), asks for forgiveness for his inexperience and lack of skill in eloquence. -r. 957. The coming time of the holy holiday, says the preacher, excites the faithful to energetic activity on the path of exploits of virtue. According to the rules of decency, it is required that the celebrants generally wear shiny clothes: this also applies to the present time. But the truly brilliant adornment and attire for valiant idle lovers should consist in abstinence from defilements and in the attire of holiness, that is, “the purity of faith and the glory of good men.” - a’, p. 957. Spring is the time, as legalized for the celebration of Easter according to the Law of Moses, the pleasantness and beauty of this time. From here follows the moral requirement that we too should show ourselves flourishing in good deeds. This requires courage and indefatigable energy; We will achieve nothing with despicable laziness. But the most important thing for receiving the highest reward is tirelessly enduring suffering for the sake of virtue. This is proven by the examples of the farmer and the merchant. Therefore, adorned with virtues, let us stand, says the preacher, to God, about whom the Son of God announced to us, “the image and radiance of the hypostasis” of God the Father. The incarnation of the Word of God, and the earthly life of Jesus Christ for the sake of bringing people to sonship with God through sanctification and justification, since the law of Moses did not justify anyone. - a’, pp. 960 - 964. And since from this last one one might think that the “law of Moses” in this case was completely unnecessary and useless, the preacher finds out the true reasons why the law was given. Firstly, he was an image of the truth of the Gospel and a mentor to Christ, constituting an invention of the highest wisdom. “Just as those involved in metal work first develop their hands,” says Cyril, and do not immediately take up the substance necessary for their work, but, on the contrary, first practice the said art through wax, fashioning samples for utensils from it; in the same exact way, he asserts, Israel was at first guided only by images of the truth, so that through gradual exercise they could reach, little by little, the perfect good." Secondly, the "law" exposed sin and thereby aroused the thirst and hunger for salvation through faith, which was given by Christ in accordance with the prophecies. - β᾿, pp. 964 - 965. The mystery of our salvation, performed by our Lord Jesus Christ. The teaching, divine signs and wonders of the Savior - and with all this, the stiff-neckedness and unbelief of the Jews, their anger against Jesus Christ, persecution and, finally, His delivery to death on the cross. The fruits of death on the Cross and resurrection; the second coming of the Lord. A brief moral exhortation to the flock and the timing of the upcoming Easter. – ϒ, r. 965–68. Sermon 442 (under number 30). In the command to “blow the trumpet in the new moon" (Ps. 80:4-5), the preacher sees an incentive for church preachers to preach on the true new moon, that is, the time of the coming of the Savior, or better, a holiday commemorating this coming. Obeying this command, the author takes the words of Psalm 118:27 as the subject of his sermon. and finds out the meaning of the words “to make a holiday in those who teach the ways of the altar.” For this purpose, the preacher offers a description of the tabernacle of Moses, which was divided into two parts, etc. (Heb. 9:6-9). “So,” says the preacher, while the ministry under the law was in force, those who lived under the images stood in the first tabernacle (i.e., the first compartment of the tabernacle, or sanctuary); “They were not allowed to enter the holy and inner tabernacle. “Only one bishop entered there, not without blood,” but he was the image of the true Bishop (Heb. 9. 11 – 12) - Christ, “who by His own blood entered into the Holy One. Thus, we too, having left the first tabernacle, will follow Christ into the Holy of Holies and, thus, make a feast for those who teach.” Here stands a purification in the image of Christ, with cherubim covering it with their wings (the fact is that the words “in teaching” and “covering” are expressed in the text in one word: “έ and ποχάϚουσιν and ποχαϚόντων”). But for this it is necessary to wash yourself from all defilement of the flesh and spirit, which was figuratively required by the law (Ex. 30, 18 - 21), which commanded the priests to wash their hands and feet at the entrance to the tabernacle of Svidevii a’ - .. p. 969-972. But we are cleansed by Christ Himself, who spoke about this in ancient times through the mouth of the prophets; - cleanses spiritually, by grace, through holy Baptism, “clamping the mouth of sin and expelling from us all uncleanness.” The power and action of the Holy Spirit, who cleanses us in baptism, like fire, destroys the defilements of sin. Baptism serves as the door to justification, which the law did not provide. The latter only exposed sin, and did not wash it away; justification is given through Christ by faith. – β᾿, r. 972–973. A refutation of the objection that the law of Moses was first given as completely sufficient for the justification of people; but then, when he achieved this goal intended for him, God invented the path of faith in Christ. God knew everything before the foundation of the world; and since He foresaw the deceit of the devil, He first established the “law” to expose sin and our weaknesses... and wisely predestined the commandment of accusation to the grace of justification, so that grace would be received with greater desire. Confirmation by the words of Scripture of the idea that the sacrament of Christ was predetermined before the foundation of the world, and even the saving destruction was foreshadowed by the ancients in the flood and the ark of Noah. Explanation of the words of St. Peter (1 Peter. 3, 20 - 21), cited to confirm the previous thought (“that baptism was prefigured by the flood”): “it is good for the conscience to ask God” means “the confession of faith in Christ, which we usually give in the presence of many witnesses, and not only from people invested with the dignity of divine priesthood, but also from intelligent Powers who serve God, zealously caring for His glory.” - ϒ’, р. 973 – 976. 0 the divine dignity of the incarnate God of the Word and the one Person in our Lord Jesus Christ. So there are some of those who have already believed - ignorant men, filled with insidious perversity, “who are trying to overthrow from the highest throne the Word, begotten of God the Father, counting in the ranks of creatures the Creator of all and the Artist, before whom all works (His) waver and tremble, and to whom every tribe of heaven and earth and the underworld worships”, etc. (Phil. 2, 10). “There are also those who divide the Indivisible, that is, the one Christ, and pervert the bright beauty of the truth, although the Divine Paul wrote to us clearly and decisively: “one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4, 5). But if there were two Lords, there would be two faiths, there should be as many baptisms,” etc. - The sacrament of the redemption of people, perfect. Jesus Christ, the divine dignity of Jesus Christ, despite his human image, the malice and deceit of Satan and the Jews. The Lord’s betrayal by the latter, the Resurrection, the Ascension to Heaven and the Second Coming of the Savior - β᾿, p. 976 - 981. – A brief moral exhortation in view of this. Easter date. – έ, r. 981 Sermons for different occasions (homiliae diversae). #Determination of the time of origin of the named sermons and presentation of their content. The second section of the sermons of St. Cyril of Alexandria consists of homiliae diversae, that is, sermons for different occasions. The order of placement of these sermons in the Minier edition (Cursus completus Patrologiae) was determined not by the time of origin of this or that sermon of this kind, but by their gradual discovery and publication in later times. Thus, the first places in the Patrology of Minié are occupied by sermons published by Avbert in 1638; then follow the sermons published by Bonius and mainly by Cardinal Angelo May in 1833. It is clear that with such a formulation of the matter, the proper chronological sequence of the sermons themselves could not be observed, since the time of the opening of this or that sermon cannot serve as a guarantee for this or that time of its origin. In the Minier edition, some sermons preached before the Council of Ephesus are placed after the sermons spoken during this council and after it, and vice versa: the sermons after - those from Ephesus are placed among those from Ephesus, etc. Often anachronisms with such placement of sermons reach up to 30 years; for example, the teachings during the transfer of the relics of St. Cyrus and John, spoken in the first years of Cyril's bishopric, are attributed by Migne to the last preaching works of Cyril and so on. Hence, in view of the inconvenience and unscientific nature of this order of sermons for their consideration and research, we need, as far as possible, to restore the historical and chronological order of this type of sermon. – The means for determining the time of origin of each sermon can serve for us, firstly, the known circumstances of the life of Cyril himself, indicating or suggesting this or that sermon, secondly, the content and various random hints in the sermons, and, finally, the nature of this or that sermon. The last sign can be accepted and used in action, of course, only in the absence of other more decisive ones. Actually, by this sign we mean the direction that the preaching of St. primarily took. Kirill at different times. Thus, in the first time of Cyril’s preaching ministry, the exegesis of Scripture predominates in connection with polemics against the Jews; in the Form and structure of speech there is a tendency towards rhetoric, talkativeness and verbosity, etc. In the second half of his preaching activity, Cyril was most interested in polemics with heretics and the disclosure of dogmatic and, even more honestly, Christological teaching. Sermons of the pre-Destorian period (412 – 429). Among the first actions of St. Cyril, upon his accession to the archbishop's throne in Alexandria, there was, as we already know, the reenactment of the relics of St. martyrs Cyrus and John to the village of Menouthis. The time of this event can be confidently attributed to the first years of Cyril’s bishopric, i.e., 412 - 414. If so, then three brief teachings on the transfer of the relics of the said martyrs, placed in Curs, also date back to that time. compl. under number 18 (all three) with the following inscription: oratiunculae tres in translatione religuiarum ss. martyrum Cyri et Ioannis. Actually, only the last two teachings speak about the transfer of relics, which, as can be seen from their content and inscription, were pronounced on two adjacent days (July 1st and 2nd), one in Kanova, and the other in the village of Menoufis. The very first teaching only by its inscription (περί τῶν ά ϒ ίων μαρτυρων K ύρου χαί Ἱωάννου) speaks about the named martyrs, but when it was pronounced, there is no other indication about this. It can be assumed, however, that the first teaching was said earlier than the other two, namely, when the relics of the holy martyrs were just being carried to Menoufis, i.e. during a stop at the Tavena monastery in Canova. But since the last two teachings fall in the first years of Cyril’s priesthood, the first teaching refers either to the same time (only 4 days earlier) or to an even earlier one (a year before the 2nd and 3rd teachings). The full inscription of the first of the teachings under consideration is as follows: “Blessed Cyril’s speech to the Tavenian monks - in Canova, called “Metania” (repentance), on the holy martyrs Cyrus and John, 2, Epiphi,” i.e. June 26, 115. “Courage and patience, this is how Cyril begins this teaching, this is a beautiful and luminous twin of virtues, especially befitting of the saints, to whom blessed David calls: “Take courage, and let your heart be strong, all you who trust in the Lord” (Ps. 30:25), and the disciple of the Savior: “Have patience in need, so that having done the will of God, you will accept promise” (Heb. 10:36). Therefore, we must, since we were good in the beginning, strive towards the end in order to inherit the kingdom of heaven in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and dominion forever. Amen." – page 1100 – 1101. The second teaching, both in its inscription and in its content, clearly indicates the event that caused it - the transfer of the relics of St. Cyrus and John from the Church of St. Apostles to the Church of St. Evangelists in the village of Menoufis. It is inscribed this way: “His first teaching (έξή ϒ ηοις πρώτη) on St. the martyrs Cyrus and John, who rest here, is the first of two (i.e., teachings) in which this Father tells about their honest suffering and the position of their holy remains in this place. This first speech was made in “Metania” (i.e., Canova), precisely in the Church of the Holy Apostles, on the 7th of Epiphi,” that is, on July 1. “We were not lazy,” says Cyril, in relation to ordinary preaching; but as the Savior said, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak (Matthew 26:44). But we believe that by the grace of God, through your prayers, our illness will pass. Now we consider it necessary to announce to you what we decided to do for the sake of benefit, since this area needed doctors who would heal by the power of God. Therefore, in order for all these places, especially those adjacent (adjacent) to the Church of St. Evangelists 116, to bring benefit (for the inhabitants, not having martyrium 117, went to other countries and wandered, being Christians), then we were forced to find the relics of the holy martyrs. Indeed, we found and carefully inquired that at the time we received the martyrdom of St. The Virgins 118, the divine source of which we have in the church of the Holy Evangelist Mark 119 - two people were present at that time, one of whom was a monastic ascetic, and the other a warrior, and they encouraged these (i.e., the Holy Virgins), convincing them to feat and courageous determination to expose themselves to danger for our Savior, but together with them they themselves were called to martyrdom: having acted courageously, they testified about Christ and laid down their souls for Him. And here are the remains of St. 120 martyrs remained lying in one place. When it was impossible to distinguish the remains and reliably indicate who is this and who is that, then we, having gathered both, transferred them and laid them in the Church of the Evangelists 121, setting up a tomb as usual, as for martyrs. Therefore, let us gather, if Christ deigns, tomorrow together and honor the Holy One. Evangelists and blessed martyrs, whose names are Cyrus and John.” The third teaching was delivered the day after the previous one in the village of Menoufis in the Church of St. Evangelists, where Cyril invited the inhabitants of Canova, or Metania, to gather; The inscription of this teaching is as follows: “His other speech, delivered in the Church of the Evangelists, where he placed the relics of St. martyrs Cyrus and John, two furlongs east of Canova, near the village of Menuphis, on the 8th of Epithi," i.e., July 2. Citing the words of the Savior about His disciples following Him (Luke 14:25 - 27), the preacher says: "the words of the Savior demand from us ardent zeal, and convince us that those who want to love Him should not consider anything more precious than Him - neither attachment to the body, nor love for fathers, nor respectful tenderness for mothers and brothers. He knew that by despising all this, they would gain a great and rich reward. But another thing can be added to the sfm, remembering how great love He had for us when He did not prefer His own to our deeds, for example. He put the salvation and life of everyone above his own affairs. Being God, for our sake he became a man, endured the cross, and was careless about his shame. But those who suffer with Him will also reign with Him, and those who are disgraced will also be glorified with Him.” “We believe that it was in this way that St. Martyrs Cyrus and John: for they willingly came out to fight for the piety of Christ. And now a terrible beast leaps at them, I mean death. But they remembered their Lord, who said: “If he does not accept his cross and comes after Me, My disciple cannot be.” Therefore, fulfilling the commandment, they took up their cross and followed the Lord. – But they were not the only ones who went to suffer: there was also the face of the Holy Virgins, although women by nature, but not perverted by mind. Therefore, the beautiful duo of these fighters died together with them, receiving as a reward for such love for Christ the power to trample on Satan and cast out evil demons. Therefore let those who were previously mistaken come flocking in; let them begin true and genuine healing. No one invents dreams among us; no one says to those who come: “The Lady has ordered: do this and that." Can the Lady (Kira) really be God and demand worship? After all, demons have neither male nor female gender! So look at what kind of inventions they indulge in: they want to be called by the names of women. Therefore, having trampled upon such old women’s fables and outdated ravings of sorcerers, let them flock to the true and highest doctors, to whom Almighty God granted the power of healing, saying: “Heal the sick; tune priyaste, tune daditf" (Matthew 10:8) - The sermon ends with a doxology to the Trinity - b. 1104 - 1005. In addition, approximately, to the time, like the teachings discussed, the “accusatory speech against the eunuchs” (λό ϒ ος ζηλιτευτιχός χατά εύνούχων) should be attributed, standing at number 19. From the life of Cyril to us it is known that his most zealous and intense struggle with various kinds of superstitions, vices and generally ills of Alexandrian society fell on the first years of his episcopal service; then, of course, the saint’s healing word was needed against the moral illnesses of society. At least in the second half of his pastoral activity, Cyril already spoke the following words to his flock (h. p. 21, ά, pp. 849 - 52): “I know that you are in sound understanding, keep the wise prudence of St. fathers and adhere to the constantly heard instructions of the best mentors, so that nothing prevents us from saying with the blessed Parable: “all rights to those who understand and rights to those who gain understanding.” From the Easter sermons we have already seen that the denunciations of the vices and generally moral shortcomings of society are contained in the sermons of the first half of Cyril’s bishopric, namely in the 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 14th. – In general, Cyril, as a zealous guardian of the purity of faith and life, could not endure and endure for long such a vile vice as skoptestvo. Therefore, we attribute the work of Cyril in question to the first years of his bishopric. In the form that has come down to us, the speech against the eunuchs 122 is a passage without beginning or end. “Being men, these unfortunates,” the passage begins, “do this, that is, they acquire for themselves the properties of women, through their debauchery. For, distorting nature without any need, unless due to lust, they, of their own free will or forced by others, pervert the divinely created and man-decent image, so that they become the destruction of nature and the enemies of the human race, a stain on society and offenders to life. Fornicating, like the Maenads, they go on a rampage beyond all measure in satisfying shameful passions, merging their miserable lives with vile and depraved behavior, giving their face an ambiguous and disgusting appearance, showing only a false sign (mask). Let them be far removed from sacred places, let them be expelled from sacred assemblies, as vile and hateful insulters of God. since by an evil and perverted will they changed and turned a beautiful and divine cause into an evil and false teaching and forced the clergy to serve a proscribed cause, they deserve to suffer not only punishment according to civil laws, but also to be completely expelled according to the Gospel and Apostolic decision - into the so-called pitch darkness. For Moses said about such people: “Let not the eunuch and the eunuch enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deut. 23:1) – pp. 1105–1108. “At least you can see the houses of nobles filled with such monstrous creatures wearing gold necklaces around their necks - you can see these men by nature, but having a feminine face and speaking like a woman and speaking languidly. Like harlots, they obscenely turn their heads this way and that, laughing immeasurably and shamelessly, clearly showing the unbridled passions. Therefore, with men they indulge in vice, like women, lying pamperingly in bed and voluptuous; and with women they act shamelessly and brazenly, going to bed like guards and, moreover, precisely as models of chastity. And they themselves, thus corrupted by shameless and unclean men, commit fornication and become defiled through shameful adultery contrary to nature, and at the same time, on the other hand, they corrupt and defame unfortunate women, as they say, burdened with sins - they corrupt like rabid dogs. But the most unbearable and saddest thing is that because of this, both the corrupt and the spoiled become the culprits, intermediaries and participants in eternal punishment. " - p. 1108. But, oh ignorance, delusion and madness! People, and especially prominent ones, accepting these as chaste, trust them and bring them into their homes. They, having been established and having achieved trust, having seduced little chaste men who are zealous for true virtue, miserably cast them into the shameful abyss of the Sodomites and consigned them to flames. Therefore, finally, decisively and irrevocably, the civil law and the evangelical word, moral behavior and pious life turn away from them, as from those hated and defiled by God. For these people, having desired such a lawless life to what extent it reached them by their own free will, destroyed the cities, destroying the productive power of themselves and others; in a strange way they exhausted the blooming strength of the husband, the flower of age and the noble strength decent for a man. Relaxing the integral and vibrant life of youth, they made those they entangled miserable and worthy of ridicule. Indeed, they must be avoided and averted in every possible way, as destroyers of souls, ulcers of the body and criminal corrupters of nature. For, in truth, there is nothing more disgusting and wicked than these harlots and fornicators. So usually, as far as we have undoubtedly and thoroughly learned, not only those who have their reproductive members only slightly damaged, intemperately indulge in voluptuousness and insatiably debauchery, but even perfect eunuchs and castrated ones, just like eunuchs by nature - oh, extreme extravagance and mental damage! They corrupt unfortunate women with hand and finger, and thus the wicked insanely commit adultery. Demonstrating this, the wise one clearly said: “Blessed is the eunuch, who has not committed iniquity in her hand,” and so on. (Wis. 3, 14, 13)... So, let those who in vain consider them pure and chaste, take heed, and let them not trust lies, imaginary purity and chastity. For what can come from something unclean that is pure, and from a lie what is corrupt”? – pp. 1108 – 1109. Judging by the abundance of feeling, various rhetorical figures, floweriness, verbosity, deviations from the subject of speech, repetitions of the same thing several times, lack of consistency, etc., “The Word on the Exodus of the Soul and on the Second Coming” (όμιλία περί εξόδου) also belongs to Cyril’s early works ψυχής χαί περί τής Δευτέρας παρουσας), placed under number 14. The fact in most cases is undeniable that the most immature, but at the same time verbose and decorated with external splendor and pomp, the works are written in youth. At least Cyril of Alexandria confirms this with Easter sermons. It is the first Easter sermons up to the 14th that are extremely long (almost twice and even three times longer than the “Word on the Exodus of the Soul”), flowery and florid, while the latter are more concise, concise and simple. In addition, the harshness of the denunciations of sinners, the harsh and irrevocable sentence against them would not be in harmony with the warm and paternal love of old age, as can be seen, for example, from the sermons of the last years of Cyril’s life (“on the Last Supper” and others.) - Of the enemies of Christianity, the author denounces only the Jews (p. 1088) and very sharply; and this again gives the right to attribute the sermon in question to the first years of the episcopacy Cyril, when the Jews especially harmed Christians... Finally, based on the words (p. 1089): “The father of death, the devil, is strengthening himself, like an armed enemy, to overcome and defeat us on these holy days, so that later he can say” and so on, we can conclude that this sermon was delivered during the Holy Pentecost, the days of which Cyril often call holy. The preacher begins his speech with an image of a confused mental state at the thought of death and the fate that awaits us after it. “I am afraid of death, for it is bitter to me; I am afraid of Gehenna, for it is endless;... I am afraid of eternal torment; I am afraid of insoluble bonds, the gnashing of teeth, inconsolable crying and inevitable denunciations: for the Judge Himself will bring before the eyes of sinners all their deeds, words and thoughts, and then no one will help or deliver from condemnation. " Hence, crying and contrition of the spirit embraces the soul of the preacher, and makes it pour out in a deep repentant feeling, self-reproach and self-flagellation, expressed in an impartial analysis of the sinful state, starting with the germs of sin and ending with its hidden movements. the church of my body and offended the Holy Spirit. 0 O God, true are your deeds, and righteous is your judgment! They called me, and I did not obey, they testified to me, and I laughed; I read, and understood, and even believed, but through negligence, laziness and carelessness, in the distraction and whirlwind of everyday life, among the joys and amusements, intoxicated with exuberant joy and joy, I ruined my years, months and days." In contrast to such a life, the preacher paints a picture of the state and fate of the soul after its separation from the body, and continues: "what, think, fear and trembling will embrace the soul in that the day when she will see terrible, cruel, ferocious, merciless and frantic demons, coming like black Ethiopians, the sight of which will be more terrible than any torment?” - They will delay the soul on its way to the Kingdom of Heaven, in various ordeals, of which the preacher depicts five: the first ordeal - sins committed through the mouth and tongue, the second - sins of sight; 3rd ordeal - sins of hearing, 4th - sins of smell, 5th ordeal - all lawlessness and vile deeds committed with the hands. Further ordeals include other sins, such as: anger, hatred, envy, vanity, etc. Briefly, every passion of the soul, every sin will similarly have tax collectors and torturers." Further, the preacher proceeds to depict the opposite state of souls - those who freely went through ordeals and achieved unspeakable joy - and the souls of sinners, taken by terrible demons and thrown into underground and hellish prisons, and points out the uselessness for us of all the blessings, glory and honors of this world. - page. 1072 - 1077. The preacher again draws the attention of the listeners and brethren to the immeasurable contrast in the state of the righteous and sinners after the private and general judgment. The author’s figures of opposition, or antithesis, are positively endless here. In addition to this, the preacher again paints a picture of the gloomy and terrible state of sinners in hell, when excommunicated from God and St. angels, in the vicinity of evil and hard-hearted demons. – r. 1077 – 1084. Pronouncing grief and destruction for sinners in the future life, the preacher, as if to show that they fully deserved this punishment, presents a picture of their vile, abominable and sin-filled earthly life: “how they turned away from the light of virtue, loved the darkness of sin and walked the long and wide path of depravity that has intensified in the world!” In contrast to them, the author depicts the pure and praiseworthy life of the righteous: “blessed a person, he says, who does not weaken in prayer, remains in fasting, rejoices in vigil, conquers and drives away sleep,” and so on.. “But those,” says Cyril, again turning to sinners who rub their faces with rouge and their cheeks with white, dress and dress up in front of the mirror, in order to deceive, will be punished. Those who say: “We will sin in youth and repent in old age,” will be deceived and ridiculed by demons; they will not be worthy of repentance, but in the flower of their youth they will be reaped with the sickle of death.” Having pronounced the destruction of the Jews and all godless heretics, the preacher invites listeners to tame their passions, fight the devil and sin, and adorn themselves with various kinds of virtues, - pag. 1084–1089. Cyril’s early homiletical works also include sermon number 13, inscribed: “Conversation on St. Feast of Vay and the Donkey" (είς τήν ά ϒ ίαν έορτήν τών V αίών χαί είς πώλον). The sermon contains strong and sharp attacks on the stiff-necked Jews, denouncing many heresy, but does not mention the heresy of Nestorius in a single word. Judging by the fact that the denunciations of the Jews here are so harsh as in no other sermon (the constant epithets of the Jews here are “evil, adulterous, raging, wicked,” etc. The synagogue is called “evil, adulterous”), and, moreover, the preacher returns to them in preaching several times, one might think that this conversation is one of the earliest. It is from the sketch of the life of the saint that we know that he fought with particular energy and tirelessness against the Jews in the first three years of his bishopric, when they, indeed, did various dirty tricks and insolence to the Christians, until, finally, in 414 or 415 (or even 418 - 422) they were expelled from Alexandria (Socrates. Church. Ist. book 7, chapters 13 and 14). On the other hand, the frivolity of speech and rhetoric reach the widest dimensions here: almost the entire sermon consists of various kinds of figures and tropes. In view of this, we attribute this sermon to the years 412 - 415. "Conversation on St. the holiday of Vay and the Donkey's significant size cannot be satisfactorily conveyed in a logically consistent story, because it all consists of different rhetorical Figures repeating the same thoughts, and loud flowery phrases. The beginning of the sermon indicates the holiday theme that evoked it. “As we celebrate the coming of the Tsar now, the faithful,” says Cyril, “let us meet the Tsar splendidly. It’s time to stop sleeping: let’s lift up our minds to God, let’s not quench our spirit, let’s light our lamps brightly, let’s change the tunic of our soul; as victors, let us bear the crowns with the people, as the people with children, as children, let us shout: Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Matthew 21:9.5)". Further, with a whole series of rhetorical figures (namely, anastrophe 4 times, apostrophes and antithesis), the preacher indicates the reason for the present celebration and invites everything and everyone to this celebration, in this way, for example: "here he has come, now he has appeared, here the King has appeared. Again He enters Jerusalem, again the cross is prepared for him:... The rivers, flow, cry out, the hills, respond, little children, sing!... For He is coming who wants to do good to all: the Master will satisfy the debtors... and so on. Through figurative and allegorical devices, the preacher continues to clarify the essence of the holiday. “Yesterday,” he says, Bethany celebrated, today the Church enjoys the divine coming; yesterday (the Lord) gave life to another, today He Himself is coming to death" ... "He raised Lazarus for four days in order to foreshadow the general resurrection of our nature, consisting of four elements. - But there Martha fusses, representing the image of service according to the law, and here Mary sits at the feet of the Lord, representing the Church, love and commitment to Him." Having pointed to the coming of the Lord as the reason for the joyful celebration, the preacher in dramatic form represents that both this coming and the joy were announced in ancient times. "This coming from afar was foretold to us by the wonderful Zechariah and, inviting creation to joy, he called out to Jerusalem like this: “Rejoice greatly, daughters of Zion” (9, 9)... "What kind of sermon? Tell me more clearly, prophet... What does he say to Zion? - Behold, your King is coming to you - How? Is it with chariots, or with an army, on foot and on horseback, and with other royal pomp? - No, he answers. - How? All the horses and stallions are young. “What are you saying?” and so on. – pag. 1052 – 1053. Having conveyed the story of the Evangelist Luke (19, 29. 31) about the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem, the preacher explains this place in an allegorical spirit; “The whole opposite, he says, is the image of real life: for this life was against God and far from Him. So, when God has already approached this weight, when, having become incarnate, He became with us, then He sends two disciples, that is, two covenants, to bring two peoples to Him - an old and aged synagogue, and a new pagan people that has not yet been taught.” Returning then again to the gospel story, namely to the words - “blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” the preacher, with a figure of bewilderment (άπορία), asks how he could be God sitting on a donkey, and then in a dramatic form, on behalf of different talking persons, proves the divine dignity of Jesus Christ. - pp. 1053 - 1056. Further, the preacher brings out first the Jew (b. 1057 - 1060), then various heretics: the Manichaeans, Arius, Marcian, Paul of Samosata - a man-worshipper (b. 1060 - 1064), then again the Jew (b. 1064 - 1065), and argues against them (the speech is presented in a polemic-dramatic form) divine dignity of Jesus Christ. Against the Jews, the preacher proves the divine dignity of Jesus Christ with texts from the Old Testament scriptures (Ps. 46:9; 109:10; Isa. 9:6, etc.); against the latter - both in places of the New and Old Testaments and their comparisons. For the same purpose, the author cites (r. 1065 – 1068) the Virgin Mary’s confession of her Son as God. Returning again to the joyful event of the holiday and revealing its history, in an allegorical spirit (“Lazarus is bound in bonds of error; the colt and the colt are bound in error, located in a country opposite to the village of faith”), the preacher finally goes into strong drama mixed with allegorism (pp. 1068 - 1069). Here the author presents various creatures and objects questioning each other, perplexed, praising the Lord as he enters Jerusalem, ordering him to pay divine veneration. At the same time, the entrance to earthly Jerusalem merges with the entrance to heavenly Jerusalem - In conclusion, the preacher makes a moral exhortation to the listeners, consisting, however, of general phrases - p. Finally, we think that sermons numbered 9, 12 and 17 date back to the pre-Nestorian period of Cyril’s activity. All three of these sermons are of exegetical content and between sermons of the same kind are the best and most mature. They no longer have that extreme passion for allegory that is noticeable in the first Easter sermons; in the same way, there is no such striking harshness of denunciations against the Jews; the preacher's thought is deeply thoughtful, serious, calm and authoritatively important, especially in the 17th sermon. Therefore, their appearance should be attributed not to the first years of the pre-Destorian period, but to the last, precisely 23 - 28, when, on the one hand, Cyril’s theological and exegetical mind was fully strengthened, and on the other, the Jews were no longer disturbing Christians with their blasphemies and antics. But on the other hand, these sermons appeared before the heresies of Nestorius, firstly because from that time (429) the exegetical direction of Cyril’s preaching gives way to the dogmatic or dogmatic-polemical (with heretics), while the indicated sermons (9, 12 and 17) are precisely of an exegetical nature; Secondly, both in the 9th and 12th sermons there are no hints of Nestorius’s heresy, although there would have been cases if these sermons had appeared after 429. For example, in the 9th conversation, proving the divine dignity of Jesus Christ from the words of God and the Father: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, listen to him," the author has in mind exclusively the Jews alone, while in the course of the speech it would be very appropriate to touch upon the heresy of Nestorius. In the 12th conversation, the preacher, speaking about the Holy Virgin Mary, blessed by Simeon, does not even give a hint at the starting point of Nestorius’s teaching (that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of Man, or the Mother of Christ). Virgos are like this (p. 1048); “Simeon also blesses the Holy Virgin, as chosen as an instrument for the divine will and who served in giving birth, but who did not experience the laws of human nature, for she gave birth, being a Virgin, not from her husband, but from the Holy Spirit who came upon her.” Discourse on the Transfiguration of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ (No. 9). “Those who are skilled in competitions,” the preacher begins, enjoy the applause of the spectators; but those who strive to achieve divine gifts and the hope prepared for the saints willingly enter into competitions in piety in Christ." For the latter, no temptations are terrible and no adversities are dangerous to their courage. Wealth for them lies in suffering, as the Savior teaches (Matthew 16, 24 - 25). "Suffering, chosen for the sake of Christ, does not remain without reward, it will prepare participation in eternal life and glory. Meanwhile, the preacher continues, it was natural for the disciples, who had not yet received power from above, to share human weaknesses and ask themselves: how can one deny oneself? Or how will one who has lost his soul find it again? And what reward will the one who has done this receive? “There is nothing from those who stand here, who have not tasted death, until they see the kingdom of God.” Well? Could it be that in that answer they were foretelling an extension of life until the time when, after the completion of the ages, the Lord, having descended from heaven, would establish the kingdom prepared for the saints?“ Noting that indeed this was quite possible for the omnipotent divine will, the preacher says that the kingdom here refers to the spectacle of glory in which the Lord will appear to those living on earth, when he comes in the glory of God and the Father, but not in humiliation in our likeness. In confirmation of his words, the Lord makes those who received the above promise spectators of the miracle of the Transfiguration (Luke 9:28-9), as an image of the future kingdom of glory. Having mentioned Moses and Elijah, who spoke about the exodus of the Savior, Cyril interprets: “Indeed, it is true that the law given through Moses and the prophetic word (Elijah - synecdoche) foreshadowed the mystery of Christ. . . Therefore, the presence of Moses and Elijah and their conversation with each other was also a certain symbol of the economy, showing that the spear-bearing one of the law and the prophets is our Lord Jesus Christ, who was foretold by them as the Lord of the law and the prophets, which he preached according to. . . This, I believe, was the conversation between the most sacred Moses and the all-honorable prophet Elijah. – But we can also mean something else. since some of the people said that He was Elijah, others that Jeremiah, and still others that in general one of the prophets, therefore the Savior calls upon the most important of the prophets, so that they could see here how much distance separates the slave and the Master. And one more thought can be expressed. since they persistently accused Him (the Lord) that He was breaking the law, and they blasphemed that He was exalting to Himself the glory of the Father, which was unbecoming to Him - then in order to show that both accusations are the voice of slander, and that neither what happened was a violation of the law, nor the confession of Himself equal to the Father was not the appropriation of glory that did not belong to Him - for this He brings to the stage the most famous persons in the law and the prophets. Precisely, since the law was given by Moses, the Jews could count on that Moses would not look indifferently at the law that was trampled, as they thought, and even more so would not pay respect to the one who ruined him (the law) and his enemy. And Elijah was also zealous for the glory of God. And if Christ had been an opponent of God and considered Himself God, equal to the Father, not being what he said, and not doing what was appropriate in this case, then Elijah himself would not have appeared and would not have listened to Him. - Further, another reason can be given for what has been said - namely, so that they know that the Lord has the power of life and death and rules over the highest and the underworld, and therefore brings both the living and the dead into the middle. And those who appeared were not silent, but spoke about the glory that He had to receive in Jerusalem, that is, about suffering and the cross and about the resurrection after them. – r. 1009 – 1013. “The awakened disciples—until now they seemed to be dozing—become spectators of an extraordinary change. Probably, thinking that now maybe the time of the kingdom of God is coming, pious Peter is ready to stay on the mountain: let there be three tabernacles, he says, not understanding what he is saying. For the end of the age had not yet come."... "and the Savior still had to suffer for the world "... "However, during the extraordinary and unspeakable spectacle of the glory of Christ, something else happened, very important for strengthening faith in Him not only in the disciples, but also in ourselves. So from the cloud a voice was heard from God and the Father (Luke 9:36) and “when there was a voice, they say, One Jesus was found.” What will Cyril, a stiff-necked Jew, stubborn, unbeliever, and with an unbridled heart, say to this, asks Cyril? Here, in the presence of Moses, the Father commands the holy apostles to obey Him (the Lord). But if you wanted them to follow the commandments of Moses, then God would have said: since you believe Moses, then fulfill the law, but now this is not what God and the Father says, on the contrary, when Moses and the prophet Elijah stood, then God commands them to obey Christ. And so that no one distorts the truth, saying that the Father commanded the apostles to obey Moses, and not Christ the Savior, then the evangelist remarked: as if there was a voice, one Jesus was found. Consequently, at the time of the voice, Moses was no longer present, and Elijah was not there, but there was only Christ, Whom he was ordered to obey. The Jews, for their unbelief, are rejected by God and deprived of the benefits promised to their fathers,” - In conclusion, praise to God. - p- 1013 - 1016 “Conversation at the Meeting of Our Lord Jesus Christ” (number 12). "The congregation is numerous, so begins the preacher, the listeners are zealous, - for I see a full church, - but the one who leads the secret is poor. Only he who opens the mouth and tongue of a person is able to direct us to good thoughts, as He Himself says in one place: “Wide your mouth, and I will fill it" (Ps. 80:11). And therefore, all who have come here without laziness and gathered for the celebration of the Lord, let us zealously glorify this holiday with 123 lit lamps. Having made such an introduction, the author proceeds to the recollection of the festive events that preceded the “meeting”, namely the Nativity of the Lord and His position in the manger. “We see Him today,” he continues, “submitting to the laws of Moses” in order to redeem us from the curse of the law (Gal. 4: 1 - 4). Having then shown that Christ redeemed us through the fulfillment of the law, that is, in order to destroy the sin of transgression in Adam, He gave Himself for us to God and the Father, obedient and meek in everything, Cyril says: “So, when you see Him fulfilling the law, do not be offended, and do not set free in the joy of slaves." After this follows a presentation and interpretation of the very events commemorated on the feast of the Presentation of the Lord 124. “When the 8th day arrived, on which, according to the law, the flesh should have been circumcised, He took the name Jesus, which means “Salvation of the people.” It was then that the salvation of the people came, and not just one, but many, or better than every nation throughout all the heavens.” – r. 1040 – 1044. Citing the words of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 1:19): “circumcision is nothing"..., the preacher clarifies the true or spiritual meaning of circumcision. “On the 8th day, he says, Christ rose from the dead, giving us circumcision in the Spirit. So God commanded the holy apostles: go and learn all languages, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ( Matt. 28. 19). Jordan, then Christ circumcises us by the power of the Holy Spirit, not cutting off the flesh, but washing away the wounds of the souls.” – r. 1044. Explaining, then, the circumstances of bringing the Lord to the church to be placed before God, the preacher draws attention to the sacrifice made by Mary - two doves. “What does a turtledove or dove mean? He asks and answers: “Pigeons among the birds of the field are distinguished by their special tenderness and meekness. Such is the Savior of all for us, filled with the most perfect meekness.”... But at the same time, “Christ brought Himself into the stench of fragrance, in order through Himself and in Himself to lead us to God and the Father - to resolve the alienation that weighed down under us through the crime of Adam and the sin that dominated you all,” for which we cried out to the Lord (Ps. 24:16). r. 1044 – 45. Having shown that the appearance of the Savior was predicted by the prophets, and therefore the bringing of the Savior to the church was known to Simeon, Cyril sets out the history of the Presentation of the Lord by Simeon, and explains the words of the latter - “Light in the revelation of tongues" (Luke 2, 29 - 32) in the sense of the shining of the light of true knowledge of God for those who were in darkness and worshiped demons. "So, the preacher concludes, Christ became the light in the revelation of tongues and the glory of Israel. And although many of them (Israelites) were wicked and treacherous, perverted and hard-hearted, yet some remained and were glorified in Christ. The beginning of these were the divine disciples, whose glory illuminates the whole world, further, to Israel because from them came God according to the flesh, although He, as God, is above all physical conditions." From the further words of Simeon St. Cyril dwells on the following: “This is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign it will be reproached.” Citing Isaiah’s prophecy about Christ (Is. 8, 13, 14, 15), he says: “but since Israel did not sanctify Emmanuel as Lord and God, and did not want to believe in Him, they stumbled over unbelief like a stone, were crushed and fell. But many rebelled, namely those who believed in Him; These were transplanted from the subordinate cult into the spirit, and from the spirit of slavery, which they had in themselves, they were enriched with freedom, that is, holiness," etc. "The sign that serves as the subject of controversy is the honorable cross (1 Cor. 1:23 - 4), which for those who are perishing is considered stupidity, for those who know its action serves for salvation and life. Simeon said to the Holy Virgin: and the soul A sword will pass through yours, calling by this name in all likelihood the sorrow that She had through Christ, seeing Him who was born to Her crucified.” And that She did not know about His resurrection is not at all surprising, for the same thing happened to the apostles (John 20, 25) -pag. 1045 – 1049 “Discourse on the parable of the vineyard 125” (under number 17). #Likewise is the kingdom of heaven to the home-eating man, who went out in the morning to hire laborers for his grapes. “You have heard, beloved, the gospel parable of the Lord; listen to our best explanation. The ruler of the great house is the Lord God, for the house is the world; The Lord who created it is God. His vineyard is human nature; the workers of the vineyard are saints working to save people. The first hour signifies the time of the pious under Abel, Enoch and Noah, for they were the first worshipers of God, that is, the first workers of the vineyard. So Noah - understand in the spiritual sense, for words are spiritual (mysterious) - planted a vineyard. They worked until the 3rd hour. The time after the 3rd hour is the period of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for they too are the workers of our salvation, three in number, which is why they worked until the 6th hour. From the 6th hour - the middle of the day, when the sun illuminates the universe brighter - this is the time of the law, because now the true light - our God - has illuminated humanity with the commandments of the law. So, indeed, “the commandment of the Lord is bright, enlightening the eyes” (Ps. 18:9), and also: “Thy commandments are light” (Is. 26:9). From the 6th hour - noon. Indeed, when the times reached the end from the beginning of the world until the end of time, then Moses and Aaron were sent as the noon ray, and here is the cult of the law until the 8th hour. The ninth hour is the time of the spirit-bearing prophets, for they too, as wonderful workers, were sent by the Master of the House to cultivate the vineyard of our soul until the 10th hour. The tenth hour is the coming of the Only Begotten; for at the last time, after the fulfillment of the ages, the Son of God, the Word of God, came down to us; and just as from the 11th hour to the 12th there is already one last hour (time), so from the coming of Christ until the fulfillment (of the centuries) is one year (time). Listen to what John says: “Children, this is the last hour” (I John 2:18). You see that the Lord of the vineyard, coming out at the 11th hour and finding idle people, hired them. Who are these idle people? We are from tongues; for we were idle from the knowledge of God, idle from good deeds. And he says to them: “Why are you standing here idle all day?” (Matthew 20:6) He called the time from the beginning of the creation of the world until the coming of Him (the Savior) a whole day, for hitherto the pagans were idle, not knowing God, “for no one hired us,” they answer. The pagans are prudent: indeed, no one hired them, neither the law nor the prophets; the latter were sent to Israel, and not to the pagans. Therefore, it is very reasonable they answer, “as if no one hired us.” But the good Householder says: “You too go and work in the vineyards, and if there is righteousness, I will give it to you” (Ibid., 7:4). And so the idle have become workers, for now this Church, which was once idle, is working: the face of the apostles, martyrs, ascetics, monastics, holy virgins, virgins (τών έ ϒ χρατών) and those living in honest marriages is working. And this Church deservedly took one denarius. A person who works so quickly can do in one hour the same thing as someone who has worked since early morning. So in one hour the thief heard: “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). But listen to what they say: “we have borne the burden of the day and age." (Matthew 20:12). They say the truth: the pagans during the period of the law did not bear the burden of the yoke of the law and, nevertheless, were equal to the first in work. “Friend,” he says, “I do not offend you.” The righteous Judge does not offend. And lest you consider the words: “I want to give this as to you” as partiality, and not a matter of grace, think this way: no matter how much we do, no matter how much we work, we do nothing worthy of the price: “all the righteousness of man is like the root of the unclean” (Isa. 64:6). Everything is a work of grace, as Paul says: “we will be justified through His grace” (Rom. 3:24): and “not by works, lest anyone should boast” (ibid.). The gift of God is not because we do not work, but because we cannot do anything worthy of a reward. For it is said: “When you have done all that is commanded to you, say, ‘For we are unimpeachable servants, for we must do them and do them.’ In fact, you give bread to the poor, and you receive the Kingdom of Heaven as an inheritance—you see what it means: “I want to give.”... 126 And further: “Even if your eye is evil, because I am good.” (Matthew 20:15)? He did not say that the saints are evil; on the contrary: “Are you not evil, since I am good?” For truly He is good in goodness. It is not according to work, therefore, the payment: the work is insignificant, but the reward is great. You gave a thirsty cup of water to drink, and you receive “their eye not seeing and ear not hearing" (Isaiah 64:4; 1 Cor. 2:9). You see how good He is. And He begins from the last to the first because the first will be last: and “I will call My people My people” (Hos. 2:24) and then: “until the fulfillment of the (full number) of tongues has come; then all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:25) in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." – b. 1096 – 1100. Sermons of the Nestorian and post-Nestorian period (431 – 444). A distinctive common feature of all the sermons of St. Cyril of Alexandria, written in the period from 431 to 444, it serves the fact that all of them in one way or another relate to the Nestorian heresy, that is, they are either directly directed against it, or develop dogmas rejected by this heresy, or simply mention it, while a characteristic feature of the sermons of the previous period is the absence of any mention or allusion to this heresy. The majority of the sermons are sermons from the year 431, namely those delivered in Ephesus, and therefore called Ephesian, the smaller part - in Alexandria regarding negotiations with the East, and so on. The first place among the 127 Ephesian sermons belongs, in our opinion, to sermon number 11, which is inscribed: “the word of praise of St. Mary the Mother of God" (έ ϒ χώμιον είς τήν ά ϒ ίαν M αρίαν τήν θεοτόχον). That the said sermon was preached in Ephesus is indicated beyond doubt by the following, for example, expressions: “Rejoice, the city of Ephesians, which has become even more maritime, because instead of earthly harbors angelic and heavenly harbors have come to you! Rejoice, the adornment of the Asian region,” etc. (p. 1032) Further, the preacher in this laudatory word not only expresses his joy about the safe arrival of the bishops safe and sound, he praises the beauty of their host and the reason for their happy, namely sea, journey and arrival. puts invisible help and protection to the patroness of Ephesus - the Mother of God, as well as John the Theologian, but does not make direct references to any incidents in Ephesus that happened between June 5 and October 30, which means that the sermon was delivered before all the Ephesian events of 431. - some, however, think that the specified sermon was delivered before Cyril’s departure from Ephesus (i.e., around October 25-30) in the Church of St. John the Theologian (Porfiry Popov, approx. to the creative ev. oo. vol. 13, p. 283). but, as we have already said, the entire content of the conversation speaks against such an opinion, referring to the shepherds who had just arrived safely, and who arrived precisely by sea, so one can think that the speech in the sermon was addressed specifically to the Egyptian bishops who came to the council with Cyril. How else, for example, can one understand such expressions: “Since I indulged in great sadness due to the lawless blasphemy of Nestorius, I convened this multiple and numerous (properly “motley”) angelic and heavenly gathering... These are all those whom the stormy waves of the sea plunged into fear, but who, stepping with joyful feet, found themselves here, despising all fear in view of the hopes of the Lord, or better yet, out of the fear of the Lord, and having taken up the cross, as wise defenders of Mary the Mother of God, they came here. Therefore, encouraged by their holy prayers, we will briefly express greetings to this city - and I, therefore, direct my words to the praise of the Mother of God... Rejoice..., decoration of the Asian region, because like precious margaritas you are built around the churches of saints, and now you are holy, trampled underfoot by many saints. fathers; in truth, even the gates and streets of the port city bless the arrival of the holy fathers." them, that he mocked us, thinking that he was making us afraid, that to you - with sighs and tears we will repeat this well-known: “It is better to trust in the Lord than to trust in princes” (Ps. 117:9). For this, this damned one, opening his golden quiver, stirred up the consuls and comites, a crowd of dignitaries and courtiers against us. But we will say this prophetic word: “These are on chariots and these on horses; “We are about the name of the Lord our God" (Ps. 19:8). So even if I had to speak to the authorities of the world and to the most pious Sovereign, I will not be ashamed and will not be embarrassed." This was exactly the position of Cyril and Nestorius before the council (June 22), and Cyril could no longer speak such words about Nestorius in the month of October.... But some expressions can refer to both times, i.e., both the first days of June and the last days of October. “Having squandered what was assigned for the poor to gold lovers,” Cyril says of Nestorius, he hoped through these latter to defeat the truth; but instead, from such shameful love of money, he suffered a terrible shipwreck; sitting in the harbor, you did not save the ship, you did not keep the helm of the faith. “... Therefore, God will finally drive you out of the priesthood and separate you from the wisdom of the fathers, expelling you first from the royal city, and then from the high priestly throne, which you unworthily took possession of” (p. 1037). But these words can be understood not as a fact, but simply as a threat. There is also no doubt that “Praise to Mary the Mother of God” was delivered earlier than the conversation, inscribed: “the sermon delivered in Ephesus, when on the 7th they descended into the Church of “St. Mary” - because earlier, because in the latter excerpts from the first are clearly visible, for example: “What kind of world? “Our Lord Jesus Christ" and so on (page 1033 and page 992), - the latter, meanwhile, was said, as we will see, in the middle of July. Finally, as for the church in which this sermon was preached, it is most likely, of course, to assume that in the “Great Church of St. Mary.” It is not entirely appropriate to speak a word of praise to the Holy Virgin Mary in the Church of St. Evangelist John the Theologian, as Archimandrite thinks. Porfiry, when in the same Ephesus there was a church of St. Mary. At the beginning of the word, the preacher expresses his joyful feeling at the sight of the glorious Cathedral of St. fathers and characterizes them in a panegyric tone. Having then mentioned the purpose of their arrival (“they came here as wise defenders - warriors of Mary the Mother of God“...), the speaker turns with a panegyric greeting first to the city of Ephesians and the Evangelist John the Theologian, as the patron of Ephesus (“Rejoice, eradicator of demonic lies, destroyer of the church of Artemis, harbor and warrior of Ephesus,” etc.), and then to the holy Ever-Virgin Mother of God: “Rejoice and You, Mary Mother of God, Virgin Mother, Light-Bearer, pure vessel,... an innocent dove, an unquenchable lamp... Rejoice, Mary Mother of God, through whom the prophets cry out, shepherds glorify... the angels rejoice... Rejoice, Mary Mother of God, for through You the turmoil of the sea has been tamed and hushed, with joy and with meekness they brought ashore our fellow servants and fellow servants..., preaching peace (Is. 52:7 – What peace? – our Lord Jesus Christ, the Preacher of peace (John. 14, 27), which the detractor Nestorius did not accept, saying that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Word is from the Virgin Mary, was not born." – pag. 1029 – 1036. Translating from here his speech to Nestorius, Cyril speaks of his previous polemic with him about the committees patronizing him (Nestorius) at this time 128 about his arrogance and dishonest way of conducting the struggle. Not without accuracy, Cyril here calls Nestorius “an evil-tongued rooster” and a boastfully pouting “turkey". “Having opened his quiver, Cyril says, he (Nestorius) tried to incite the consuls and comites and a crowd of court dignitaries against you" ... But the preacher is not afraid of any outcome; all his attention is directed to the blasphemous teaching of Nestorius: “Who has heard, he asks, such terrible and terrible things? Christ and God's Word, announced to us by the prophets and apostles, is now applied to man and the Mother of God is called the Mother of Man"?!... "He blasphemes the divine saying (λό ϒ ιον τού θεού), saying: “they crucified man.” Such blasphemy against the Lord surpasses all the blasphemies of pagans, Jews and heretics - Aria, Manichaeans, Sabellia, Iorphyria, Photina, etc. For this, the preacher threatens Nestorius with the terrible judgment and punishment of God (Luke 12, 18 - 20). In contrast to his false teaching, Cyril cites the Orthodox teaching about the divine dignity of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, which is clear from the Old Testament prophecies (Ps. 2:7; Js. 7:14) and even the confessions of demons (Matthew 8:29) - “what to us and to you, Jesus, the Son of God” - to which (demons) the heretic is likened. “O terrible thing, full of madness”! The author exclaims: “The demons with their father the devil call the one born of Mary the Son of God, and this one turns the Son of God into a man,” trying to instill this in even the most pious emperor and princesses... Again, then, pointing to the terrible judgment of God for such blasphemy and trampling on the teachings of the fathers, apostles and evangelists, the preacher turns to himself as a fighter against the heretic. “But he did not find us unprepared against the lawless and treacherous teaching. We rely not on military weapons and not on golden and beautiful defense; but we make accusations against him from the Holy and Divine Scriptures.” And in order to deflect the reproach of gloating and personal hostility towards Nestorius, the preacher refers to the fact that he extended his hand to Nestorius in writing, but the latter rejected it. As a witness to the justice of what was said, Cyril puts the Bishop of Rome Celestine, who also convinced Nestorius in writing to abandon the godless heresy, as a witness. - - Again, then, pointing out to Nestorius the righteous judgment of God and encouraging himself with the words of the psalmist (Ps. 51:10), and wishing the sovereigns and princesses to have a Son and strength for their power, the preacher ends his sermon with words to the Lord. – r. 1036–1040. The second and third places between the Ephesian sermons belong to sermons numbered 1 and 2. In these conversations, nowhere is Nestorius spoken of as already condemned, which happened on June 22, but only as an enemy of the church and Orthodox teaching, who has only yet to be comprehended by a righteous judgment, which meanwhile is not terrible for the faithful. Thus, in the 1st sermon, only the following words apply to Nestorius: “therefore, accept, O man, this mental light! The light of truth will illuminate you and leave you to fight with Christ: He does not know the winners: He Himself always wins in everything "(p. 985). In the second conversation there is not even a direct mention of Nestorius; for example, it is said only like this: "if anyone loves this way of sailing, then he holds in his mind, like a star, the verbs of the benevolent theologian, and then he will safely cross the bitter streams of heresies, then he will reach a serene haven and will meet the truth itself, that is, Christ.” Based on this, therefore, we consider both of these sermons to have been delivered earlier than June 22, 431. However, confusion arises regarding the inscription of sermon No. 2: L εχθέισα έν ‘E ϕέσψ , έν ήμέρα τοῦ ά ϒ ίου ‘I ωάννου τού εύα ϒϒ ελιστού………Meanwhile, the memory of St. Evangelist John the Theologian is celebrated on May 8th and September 26th. To eliminate this confusion, we admit that at that time and in Ephesus, where the tomb of the Apostle was located, there were several celebrations in honor of the memory of the Evangelist a year, and by the way there was a celebration of his memory in the first half of June. We admit this because this sermon could not have been delivered either on May 8 or September 26, since Cyril arrived at the council only in the first days of June, and in September he was languishing in prison. But it can be assumed that the establishment of celebrations in honor of the memory of the Apostle on May 8 and September 26 has a later origin. Sermon preached in Ephesus (λεχθείσα έν ‘E ϕέσψ) number 1. Ωραία πάνυ. Having said that for those who diligently study the Holy Scriptures, the love of true knowledge is the goal of life, the preacher, in agreement with the words of the Savior (John 17:3), affirms that the knowledge of the Son is inextricably united with the calling of the Father, and therefore both cannot be separated from each other without prejudice to their perfection (John 8:19). Since the Jews, further, rejected the divine dignity of Jesus Christ on the grounds that He had a human appearance, they think at the same time that their fathers saw God in His very being, when He descended in the form of fire on Mount Sinai (John 9:29), then the preacher, citing the words of the Savior to refute their opinion (John 5:37 - 38: “Amen I say to you, no vision of Him “You have not seen, nor heard His voice, nor have His word abiding in you, because He is His ambassador, you do not have faith”), proves that at Sinai we saw only fire, and not the nature of God, only trumpets sounded and smoke rose. But the fire was nothing more than a symbol of the fact that those who disobeyed the law, which was given to Israel at that time, would have to deal with fire. Therefore, God himself, for fear of those who sin, Moses called “Consuming Fire" (Deuteronomy 4:24). The darkness subtly showed us that it is not possible to know God, and the smoke mysteriously reminded us that the transgressors of the commandments would incessantly cry: “for in the smoke, says Cyril, the bodily eye cannot help but weep.” After this, concluding that the Jews did not see their faces Father, Whom meanwhile we saw in Christ, the author moves on to the teaching about the Divine dignity of Jesus Christ, about His incarnation against Apollinaris: “having received, Cyril says of Christ, a body that is not soulless and not devoid of reason.” “In this form,” the preacher continues, He revealed His secret to the holy fathers “and the prophets.” As an example, the story from the book of Genesis (32, 24 - 30) is given about the struggle of Jacob with an unknown person throughout the night until dawn. “Oh, insight worthy of saints!” exclaims the holy father after telling the above story: “he sees a man struggling with himself,” and the patriarch says: “I saw God face to face, and my soul was saved.” In addition, the following thoughts: I struggled with him all night, but when morning came, let me go, he said, for the dawn had broken. What does this secret image mean? With those who spend their lives, as it were, in darkness and night, and contain the darkness of ignorance in their hearts, Christ fights and fights (for he fights against enemies). When the mental dawn awakens in their minds, when, like a certain day, the light of the true knowledge of God shines upon them, the battle immediately ceases." “Therefore, man, accept this mental light! The light of truth illuminates you! Leave the struggle with Christ: He does not know the winners, but is always victorious in everything"; The sermon consists of confessing the persons of the Holy Trinity - “God the Father, from whom are all things, the Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and the Holy Spirit, in whom are all things.” – pages 981 – 985. “Sermon preached at Ephesus on St. Evangelist John”, number. 2nd “No human word is sufficient to depict the glory and greatness of the saints,” says the preacher, because the Holy Spirit spoke in them (Matthew 10:20). “They preached to us Jesus, the true light and eternal life,” Whom the whole earth worships (Ps. 65:4). Under Moses, the law was heard only in Judea; “But when our true Light shone and the Word of God was most sincerely communicated to us in flesh and blood, everything became full of It: churches and altars everywhere, everywhere praising and worshiping, good shepherds and flocks of intelligent sheep, from the multitude of which the sacred courtyards become cramped.” Having depicted the contrast between pre-Christian and Christian life and then moving on to the teaching about the incarnation of the Son of God from the Holy Virgin Mother of God and the Person of Jesus Christ, the preacher quotes the words of the Apostle Paul (Heb. 1:6) and asks: “So, who is He who entered the universe? How was He introduced? Tell us the secret, Evangelist! Proclaim now, blessed John, you, called the son of thunder, who shook the heavens with a great amazing thunder - you who own immortal verbs, for oblivion and time have not defeated your broadcasts! Look what a large congregation of shepherds has come to you! Open to us the well of life, let us now draw from the sources of salvation, but better yet, let us go to your source! And so we hear him saying: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word. This one was from the beginning to God" (John 1, 1 - 2). - In response to the words, then: - “and the Word became flesh” (1, 14), the preacher says: “ He was not in man, but became flesh, that is, man. And the Only Begotten Word of God became man, who did not cease to be God, but after the Incarnation retained what he formerly was." In conclusion, the preacher inspires the believers to keep in their minds the words of the gracious apostle in order to safely cross the bitter streams of heresies and reach the serene haven of truth. - pag. 985 - 989. The 4th and 5th places in chronological order should be taken by the Ephesian sermons numbered 4–5. No. 4 is inscribed: 'Ei 'E ϕέσψ λεχθέισα προς N εστόριον, ήνίχα χατήλθον οί έπτά πρός τήν ά ϒ ίαν M αρίαν, i.e. sermons preached at Ephesus against Nestorius, when seven (bishops) went over to St. Mary” (i.e., joined the council meeting in the church of “St. Mary”); No. 5; N εστόριου, "said in Ephesus, when the meetings on the deposition of Nestorius ended." In both of these conversations, Nestorius is interpreted as having already been deposed, expelled from the priesthood and deprived of church communion. It is in the 4th conversation that the preacher says (p. 993): "you, blinded and overwhelmed by the mania of evil-tonguing in this matter, wish deprive himself of the throne, removed himself from the list of brothers, without recognizing the One who gave you the lot of the bishopric... Now I strike down the one who has not fallen, not only the one carried by the waves, I strike down the daring slander of lawless plans... Therefore, God, about whom you falsely taught, has cast you down and torn out your root from the land of the living...” (page 996). In the 5th conversation, the preacher generally speaks in the tone of a winner, ignoring Nestorius’s arrogance, and does not console himself with the hope that the teaching he defends will triumph, but constantly implies this triumph as accomplished, and therefore only advises Nestorius not to persist, but to join the council of the fathers (p. 1001): “accept the economy, almost a sacrament by faith; do not labor over that which is beyond reason..., believe with us!’ But from the history of the Council of Ephesus it is known that there were actually two condemnations of Nestorius: the first was pronounced on June 22, in the so-called 1st meeting of the council, the second - upon the arrival of the papal ambassadors, on July 11, in the 3rd meeting, the final judgment and deposition of Nestorius by the entire Ecumenical Church was, of course, the deposition of the 11th July There is reason to believe that both of these sermons were spoken by Cyril after the second deposition, that is, after July 11. This is, firstly, the transition of the seven bishops who sided with Nestorius to the side of the Orthodox and, secondly, the joyful, cheerful and complacent tone of both sermons. Kirill clearly points out both. “This presence of St. fathers, he says (p. 992), brought joy to me, who was much distressed. Today the sweet word of the psalmist David has been fulfilled for you: “Everything that is good or that is beautiful, but let the brethren live together." (Ps. 133:1). At the end of this conversation, he so self-confidently and solemnly says (p. 996): “But what we said against him (Nestorius) is enough.... And let us have the good fortune to cherish and honor unity, to be submissive to the most God-loving emperor, to submit to the principalities and powers, to reverently honor the indivisible Trinity.”... The 5th sermon generally breathes a complacent tone. Meanwhile, both the annexation of the bishops and the complacent, joyful mood of Cyril were after July 11th. It was Porfiry Popov, in his monograph on Cyril of Alexandria (Appendix to the works of the Holy Order, vol. 13, p. 277), that the joining of seven bishops to the Orthodox council is shown under July 13th, to which day he attributed the 3rd meeting of the Council of Ephesus (with papal legates). But since we follow Thierry (“Nestorius and Eutyches”...) in the dates, for whom the 3rd meeting was marked on July 11 - but the transition of the bishops was not mentioned at all - then we assign the accession of the bishops to July 11; at the same time, of course, the 4th sermon was preached. Cyril could have been in a complacent and joyful mood precisely after the arrival of the papal ambassadors and continued until approximately July 16, to which time Cyril’s other sermons date back to - and his mood changed due to the unfavorable view of the Court on his and Memnon’s actions - changed thanks to the unfair denunciations of John of Antioch, the Comites - Candidian, Irenaeus, etc. The joyful mood from July 11 to July 16 was, of course, from the arrival and unanimous action of the papal ambassadors and from. the accession of 7 bishops. Therefore, we refer sermon No. 4 to July 11, and sermon No. 5 to the 12th - 16th of the same month. Having expressed his joy at the joining of the bishops and their presence at the Council of St. Fathers, the preacher, in the 4th conversation, turns with a word of praise to the Most Holy Theotokos Mary, in whose church this meeting of the Fathers took place - a word that is in many ways reminiscent and in some places literally similar to the greetings found in the “eulogy of St. Mary the Mother of God." Mentioning, then, the Jews who killed Christ, the bitter illness of Arius and Godless conceit of pagan unbridledness, the preacher argues: “Every people who walked the path of revelry and lawlessness perished in evil: for often the people, ignorant of the Scriptures, involuntarily slandered God. But this one, who had all the Scriptures and, perhaps, I dare say, comprehended all the tricks of magic, did not sincerely bow to the inspired Scriptures, but bowed down to silver and gold, - You, blinded by the madness of slander, deprived yourself of the episcopal throne, removed yourself from the list of these brothers, not recognizing the One who gave you the lot of the bishopric - and Who is so clearly confessed by God in the Holy Scriptures (Isa. 7, 14; Matt. 8, 29). “And uninvited, having prematurely become like Belial, you set out with the network of your lawless speculations to win over the Tsar, a zealot of Orthodoxy and a worshiper of the consubstantial Trinity, through which he unshakably reigns..., whom with your seductive speeches you dared to make an apostate, you wanted to seduce the God-loving people and disturbed the ashes of the departed fathers. You removed from the church the sacred clergy of presbyters and deacons, the clergy who accused you of absurd madness, so that you would not teach according to Arianism. And now I no longer reject the fallen and not only the one carried by the waves, but I strike down the daring slander of your lawless plans. Who has seen a wrestler who falls in the arena and cannot be raised? Didn’t we stretch out our hands when you fell?... Take as a witness the venerable and holy Archbishop of the great Rome Celestine..., take as a witness also our poverty, when with short letters they invited you to accept our teaching about God... Therefore, God, about whom you falsely taught, has overthrown you and torn out your root from among the living.” In conclusion, the preacher expresses his readiness to obey the King and the authorities and his firm determination to maintain the right faith in God. – r. 992 – 996. At the beginning of the 5th Ephesian sermon, the insatiable desire of those present to listen is spoken of as the reason that prompted the preacher to speak into the pulpit. At the same time, the joyful and laudatory mood of the holy fathers glorifying Christ is placed by the preacher in contrast with the impudent blasphemy of heretics who deny the Lord who redeemed us and slander His glory and greatness. The author compares the heretics with the insidious and wicked Pharisees and Jews who threw stones at the Savior. “Why do you, being a man, make yourself God,” these zealots of the madness and wickedness of the Jews proclaim? 0 reckless evil-tonguer, you have not learned the sacrament. Not being a man, He made Himself God, but became immutably and inextricably man. He who had the ineffable birth from the Father took birth according to the flesh of a woman, and became the son of man, that he might save us; became like you - for your sake; and through Himself remains what it was. Know, therefore, the Only Begotten, who became flesh, and confess that He is God made man for our sake.” The author further provides evidence that God had to appear and did appear on earth in bodily form, or image (Bar. 3, 36 - 38; Ps. 49: 3; Matt. 3: 2; Psalm. 131: 11; Acts 11: 30). Moreover, the prophet David even predicted the place of birth of the Lord (Ps. 132:4-6), as Micah also spoke about this (5:2). - “But I am ashamed,” says Cyril on behalf of Nestorius, to confess to God one born of a wife." “So, you want, St. Cyril responds to this, to become above the divine councils? Do you deny the economy? Do you want to strike a blow at the councils of God? But He Himself wished to save the universe in this very way. Oh, an incredible thing: the lamp argues with the sun! The Lord of everything knew the path of his own affairs." In conclusion, the preacher exhorts Nestorius (without mentioning his name) to accept the economy and the Orthodox faith. – r. 996 – 1001. Between July 17th and 20th the sermon numbered was preached. 6th, inscribed: “conversation (spoken in Ephesus) against John of Antioch, the renegade”: ντιοχείας άποσχίσαντος . That this conversation was spoken against John of Antioch, many expressions from the sermon speak about this, for example (p. 1001) 'My word is now addressed to you, to you who came from the eastern countries and raises your eyebrows high above everyone'... and so on. But the history of the Council of Ephesus shows that John, Archbishop of Antioch, from the first day of his arrival in Ephesus (June 27) was already a renegade; therefore, the speech against him as such could have been delivered in the period from June 28 to August 4, when Kirill was sent to prison. However, the history of the council also points to especially favorable circumstances during this period of time for such a sermon - these are the actions of the 4th and 5th meetings of the Ephesian council (July 16 and 17), of which at the first the excommunication from church communion and the deposition of Cyril and Memnon, made by John of Antioch at his council (June 27), were called for without any force, and at the second John himself and all his adherents are excommunicated. At the same time, on both the 16th and 17th of July, deputations were sent to John of Antioch (two on the 16th, and one on the 17th of July) so that he would appear at a meeting of the legal Orthodox council to give an answer to his actions. But John refused all three invitations, from which it became clear that he consciously and decisively did not want to appear in the presence of the council to justify himself in the accusations brought against him - it became clear that he was separating himself from the saint.” Ecumenical Council. It was this circumstance that could serve as an excellent reason for preaching the sermon we are considering (between July 17 and 20). Indeed, there are hints in the sermon that it was delivered a considerable time after John was in Ephesus; the fathers of the council appear in it as already tired, etc. so, for example (p. 1004), it is said: “that you deliberately do not come to us, your very deeds expose you. You see us, as if in war, covered with dust, still wet with the sweat of battle, demanding spiritual joy and consolation, but undoubtedly as victors... you draw your weapon against the truth of dogma. Oh incredible thing! – did not take part in the battle, did not help the fighters; escaped the moment of battle by the slowness of travel; stood, looking at the fighters from afar. you saw the fallen enemy, you saw the blasphemous tongue, suppressed and punished - and now you are saddened! Tell me, for what reason? What did Christ conquer? What did the righteous possess? Why did the lips of the loquacious talker become numb? That the disease that was spreading among the children of the church has been stopped? Such words could hardly have been spoken before the decisive and final condemnation of Nestorius by the court of the universal church (July 10 and 11) and the refusal of John of Antioch to appear at the Council (July 16 and 17). The rather offended tone of the sermon, no longer joyful and cheerful, as in the previous two sermons (nos. 4 and 5), but rather sad and heavy, also speaks in favor of assigning the sermon to the named time (July 17–20). So the preacher, saying that, despite John’s opposition to the actions of the Council, victory will remain for St. fathers, notes at the end of the sermon (p. 1005): “So Christ will win. And even if you dared to crucify you on the cross, He has already won here too. Even if you had offended Him with your crime, you would have crowned Him against your will. For we have been “given the gift of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him.” (Philip. 1:29) Cyril had every reason to say this at this time, that is, between July 16 and August 3 in general. Now it was already known in Ephesus how the Court looked at the actions of Cyril, Memnon and the Orthodox Council in general - they looked at it thanks to the reports of the committee of Candadian, John of Antioch and the personal coverage of the matter by Irenaeus. Under such painful impressions, as we will see, the 7th Sermon of Ephesus was preached (around July 30 and August 3). But with this sermon the sermon now under consideration bears great similarity as to the tone and mood of the preacher's spirit. Pointing to the love of God as a distinctive sign or property of the disciples and confessors of Christ (John 12:26), a property that was precisely discovered by this great host of priests who gathered here (i.e., to Ephesus) not for the sake of any public earthly interest, but in order to cleanse the field of the Lord from the terrible and all-destructive multi-headed dragon, the preacher turns with reproaches to John of Antioch (however, without naming him by name), who did not take part in this general struggle with the heretic. “Why aren’t all of us, co-servants, together with Christ, with his will and thought? As you know, the many-headed dragon raised his godless and villainous head, spewing out the poison of his wickedness on the children of the church. I come out to him, drawing the sword of the Holy Spirit; For the sake of Christ I go out into battle with the beast, why don’t you share the labors with those who act well? Why aren't you present here? Let him be cast out by the hand of everyone?... and so we, as faithful priests of the Savior, stewards of His sacraments, consider those who slander His glory to be the most hostile, but you do not. why?... You, numbered among the brothers, signing the name of Christ, obligated to be His comrade-in-arms - do you draw your weapon against the truth of dogmas? Oh incredible thing! Did not take part in the battle, did not help those fighting; escaped the moment of battle by the slowness of travel; stood, looking at the fighting from afar... You saw the fallen enemy, you saw the suppressed blasphemous tongue, and you were saddened. Tell me, for what reason? What did Christ conquer? Why are the lips of much talk stopped?... No, it would be better for you to take courage with you and repeat in the voice of David: “Do not those who hate You, O Lord, hate you”... (Ps. 338, 21, 22). But you have absolutely no excuse for this. On the contrary, you are aiming arrows at the victors and with the arrows of envy you intend to inflict a wound on those whom you should rather reward with your respect!" But despite the apostasy from the council and even direct opposition to it on the part of John of Antioch, the preacher does not lose courage and has full hope for the victory of his comrades-in-arms, the soldiers of Christ (Eph. 6, 13 - 16). "Although he speaks out, St. Cyril speaks of John, brave and terrible, filled with great arrogance, and like the boaster Goliath, he exalts himself over us with his unbridled foolishness and ignorance; but Christ will win precisely through his warriors.” To support his words, the preacher refers to the example of David, who defeated Goliath with five smooth stones in his bag. chosen stones. “Through these holy stones Christ will win.” The smoothness of the stones mysteriously indicates their indestructibility. “For just as what is smooth is always elusive (slips out), so the work of the saints is never unshakable. Therefore, Christ will win." Expressing hope for Christ's victory, the preacher incidentally notes at the end: "For we have been given the gift of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him" ​​(Phil. 1:29). - pp. 1001 - 1005. The next 7th place in the series of Ephesian sermons should be taken by sermon number 7, which has the following inscription: “The sermon preached in Ephesus before the arrest by the committee and imprisonment,” λεχθείσα έν E ϕέσψ, πρίν Comite John, as is known from the history of the cathedral, arrived in Ephesus on August 3, arrested and imprisoned Cyril the next day, i.e., August 4. This means that the indicated sermon was preached very close to this time, i.e., between July 30 and August 3. The tone of this sermon is sad; patience and perseverance in the matter of protecting and preserving the purity of the faith, in general, this sermon cannot be attributed to any other time than the one indicated. Cyril spoke, as is known from the history of the cathedral, following Akakios of Meletinsky, who aroused the fathers of the cathedral to courage and patience in view of the foreseeable unfavorable outcome of affairs for the Orthodox side. The same theme is in Kirill’s sermon. In accordance with the words of the Psalmist (30:25) and the Apostle Paul (Rom. 5:3-5), the preacher praises the courage and patience of all who trust in the Lord: “patience is the enabler and companion of all good, the path to honor and the nourisher of hope for the future life." It is the only path to a good and honest life: “for through - there are too many criminals against the saints and cruel war with them." Therefore, remembering the words of the Savior: “But be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world” (John 16:33), you need to courageously withstand yourself when encountering temptations and remember the words of Christ’s disciple: “Blessed is the man who endures temptation, having already been skilled, receives the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love Him” (James 1:12). The glorious fruit of spiritual courage is visible from the example of three Jewish youths - Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael, who did not want to worship before the golden image, despite any threats from the Babylonians. For such firmness in faith and stability in piety, they were thrown into a fiery furnace, where, by a divine wave, the flame of fire turned into a blowing breath of dew. "The furnace, which contained holy singers of men and angels, served as an image of the Church," with the difference that those (youths) were under the power of barbarian tyrants, and we, the preacher says of himself, under the scepter of the most pious rulers. "How then shall we yield to the enemies? For although they kindle the furnace of deceit and fan the flame of obstinacy, forcing us man-worship, but we have God in heaven, Him we worship... Following the faith of the most pious emperors and knowing the power of meekness inherent in them, we will not endure the wickedness of our opponents. On the contrary, we will confess that Emmanuel is God by nature; and by saying this and believing so, we will win what kind of reward exactly? before men, I will confess him and I before My Father who is in Heaven, and whoever denies Me before men, I will deny him and I before the Father who is in Heaven.’ “And he will confess Him, the preacher taught, who recognizes Him as the true God and who convicts the unbelievers. Further, he is denied who does not confess Him as the true God and who takes arms against those who confess. Therefore, the Savior of them all is rejected, but He confesses us.” – pp. 1005 – 1009. The 8th Ephesian Sermon is a fragment of several words, preserved in one Latin translation. As the inscription of this sermon says: homilia, habita Ephesi in maiori ecclesia, quae vocatur Mariae, it was delivered in the “Church of St. Mary.” The passage appears to contain the final words of the sermon, consisting almost of the text of St. Scriptures (Phil. 2, 10 – 11). We think that this is the sermon for the glory and honor of the Mother of God, which (sermon) was delivered by Cyril upon his release from prison, before leaving for Alexandria in October. It seems to us that sermon number 10 should be dated to the time of Cyril’s return from Ephesus to Alexandria, which was October 30, 432. It is inscribed: τού άυτού ά ϒ ίου K υρίλλου έχ τής πρώτης όμίλίας τής ὃ τι ού χρη. λέ ϒ ειν ἂ νθρωπον, άλλά θεόν ένανθρωπήσαντα, i.e. “The same St. Cyril from the first conversation about what should not be said: man is a God-bearer, but: God made man.” The content of this sermon and mainly the term “God-bearer”, which appeared with the heresy of Nestorius, show that it was delivered after the Nestorian heresy. But at the same time, its extremely calm tone (not polemical), the strict development of argumentation and Orthodox terminology indicate that the sermon was delivered long after the condemnation of Nestorius, when everything had calmed down and calmed down. Otherwise, the author would not have failed, as he did in the 17th Easter sermon, to engage in polemics with Nestorius, call him a heretic and expose his error. Consequently, this sermon appeared after the Council of Ephesus. It is further impossible to imagine that such a zealous preacher, who shared all his concerns and activities with his flock, and such a steadfast guardian of the faith, as St. Cyril, upon his arrival from the Council of Ephesus to his native flock, did not tell anything about the Orthodox teaching decreed and approved at the council. Such a sermon was the conversation we are considering and which represents an excerpt from a real whole conversation. It is precisely the words: “έχ τής πρώτης όμίλίας” that we understand in the sense of “excerpts from Cyril’s first conversation upon arrival in Alexandria”... Otherwise, that is, if we assume that this sermon was delivered to the Alexandrians not upon arrival from the council and not regarding what was decreed there, but sometime at another time - in this case it would be difficult to find a reason or reason for pronouncing it. We already know from the 21st Easter sermon with what pride the Alexandrian shepherd spoke about the good faith of his flock (p. 852); and the 21st sermon (Easter) was preached in 433. Therefore, we attribute the sermon in question (No. 20) to the year 432, to the first days after Cyril’s return (October 30) to Alexandria from Ephesus. "Although, in truth, blessed Moses was great, for he heard God saying: I know you above all, and grace is with Me" (Ex. 33:12), this is how a fragment of the conversation begins, "however, he was (only) like a faithful servant in the house. Although the prophet Samuel was worthy of surprise, he was only among those who called on God of all kinds. Although the blessed prophets were holy, but nevertheless and they performed the service characteristic of slaves, transmitting to those who lived then, and especially to us, the words from above and from God: for they always proclaimed: “This is what the Lord says.” Christ himself once spoke about the blessed Baptist; but the latter, although he received, by the unfaithful voice of the Savior (Luke 7:28), the highest place in justification, however, did not imagine Himself to be higher than the Savior, but confessed Him as Lord and yielded victory to the glory of Christ... So, although most of the saints carried the Word of God within themselves, it is not written about any of them: “The Word became flesh and dwelt in us,” and we do not see rejoicing over any of them the highest powers. Indeed, at whose birth, tell me, did many heavenly armies rejoice and sing hymns above you? About Emmanuel alone they proclaimed: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will to men.” So, although God dwelt in many saints, it is said that only one day, after the fulfillment of the ages, did the Word of God descend, one day became a man, and about one only the prophet said: “Behold, the Virgin will be with child and give birth to a Son, and they will call His name Immanuel” (Is. 7:14 Matt. 1:23). The One and Only One "has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being a curse upon us" (Gal. 3:13). One Son was given up by the Father for us; One Son laid down his own life for us; one was crucified and came to life, correcting the power of death. So, we recognize God the Word as truly becoming flesh, namely, having entered into unity with the flesh; and we do not recognize that Immanuel was a man a God-bearer. On the contrary, we confess that being God in essence, He, having taken the form of a servant, became both the Son of man, and is God Himself and at the same time man.” – r. 1109 – 1112. The next place in time belongs to sermons numbered 3 and 16. No. 3 has the following inscription: έις τόν προεξη ϒ ησάμενον, χαί είς ένανθρώπησιν τοϋ To ορίου t. e. “about the preacher who spoke earlier and about the incarnation of the Lord"; No. 16: λεχθείσα έν τοίς τού ά ϒ ίου V απτιστοϋ ‘I ωάννου, F αρμουθί χή , περί τής ϒ ενομένης όμονοίας τών έχχλησιών , χαί χατά τού δυσϕήμου N εοτορίου i.e., a conversation said on the feast of St. John the Baptist, April 23, 11th Indiction, about the unanimity of the Churches and against the evil-doer Nestorius.” – Both sermons were preached in 433. It is from the history of the Church that it is known that John of Antioch and the eastern bishops, who remained out of communion with the Alexandrian Church until 433, this year, at the insistence of the emperor, entered into negotiations with Cyril about agreement and reconciliation. For this purpose, John of Antioch in December 433 sent Bishop Paul of Emesa to Alexandria, who agreed to the conditions proposed by Cyril for entering into church communion (epist. 40, pag. 185) and therefore was accepted by Cyril into communion with the Alexandrian church. To certify the Alexandrians in their Orthodoxy, he gave two discourses, one on the day of the Nativity of Christ, and the other on January 1st. After he had delivered this last conversation, Cyril said a short word in which he confirmed and approved everything that was said by Paul of Emesa. This is Kirill’s sermon number 3. “Here we are,” the preacher says in this conversation, citing the words of the prophet. Isaiah (12:3), drew water for you from a sacred source, that is, I mean the preacher who preceded us, who, being illuminated by the light of the Holy Spirit, explained to us the great and venerable mystery of our Savior... So, the Word, which from the beginning was God, existing in the bosom of the Father, through whom are all things and in whom are all things, voluntarily became poor for our sake and became flesh, that is, by man... so that through Him we too might be rich in God the Father. This is how we are taught to pray: Our Father, who art in heaven." Having then clarified the meaning for us of the Death on the Cross and the Resurrection of the Savior, the author ends his sermon with a glorification of God the Word. - pp. 989–992. After this, having exchanged “confessions of faith, set out in writing (both Cyril wrote to John on his own behalf, and John to Cyril) and finding them Orthodox and in agreement with the faith of the fathers, both patriarchs - Antioch and Alexandria - finally entered into full church communion. This was in the same year in April, i.e. 4 and 0.5 months after the start of negotiations. The Alexandrian pastor of his church spoke about this reconciliation and conclusion of communion between the Church and the East in his sermon no. 16th As stated in the inscription of the sermon itself, it was spoken on April 23rd. Church historians also attribute peace between St. to this day. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch 129. However, confusion arises regarding the indication in the title of the sermon that it was spoken on the day or feast of John the Baptist. But at present, the days of remembrance of this saint occur in other months and dates. We have to assume that on this day the celebration of the Baptist was a local one, based on some local events, etc. Having called, according to the voice of the prophet Malachi (3:12), pious people who have a thorough knowledge of divine dogmas, a desirable and fertile land, the preacher says: “And such is every God-loving and holy soul, which has received into itself the Savior of all Christ, as a kind of farmer and sower, who illuminates us with the knowledge of divine dogmas. But the enemy of everything, that is, Satan, from time to time raises up harmful tares among the wheat. However, the latter, although they bloom, are expelled, and the field thus remains clean. Therefore, the wicked Nestorius, truly the bitter weed of the devil, was cast out by the entire church; and the God-fearing bishops throughout the entire universe finally come into unanimity, professing the right and united faith. Thus, the Eastern churches are also accepted into communion with our churches, or rather with the churches throughout the universe; for their most God-fearing bishops confessed the right and blameless faith. And as the most God-fearing and most benevolent Bishop of Antioch, John, wrote to me, and what I wrote to him, with the help of God you have the opportunity to listen.” – p. 1096. Almost simultaneously with this last sermon, or a little later after it, St. Cyril spoke two sermons (about faith) to the Alexandrians, excerpts from which we have under numbers 21 and 22. No. 21 consists of 5 passages, of which the last 4 passages repeat in parts the same thing as contained in the first passage. The inscription of the number of the 21st is as follows: τού ά ϒ ιου K υρίλλου έχ τού πρός ‘A λεξανδρίας προσϕωνητιχού λό ϒ ου περί πίςεως - “from the solemn speech of St. Cyril to the Alexandrians about faith.” No. 22 – τού ά ϒ ίου To υρίλλου έχ τής πρός ‘A λεξανδρέις όμιλίας – “From the conversation of St. Cyril to the Alexandrians.” In the first of the passages, precisely at number 21, it is said that there is no mixing, not merging, not dissolution of the Divine and human natures in Jesus Christ - it is proven why this cannot be accepted, and an image of the union of natures in Jesus Christ is shown (r. 1112 - 1113); Passage 22 contains the teaching about the impassibility (or non-involvement in suffering) of God the Word according to his own Divine nature. Meanwhile, in Cyril’s response letter to John of Antioch - a letter which, as we have seen, is spoken of in the sermon on April 23, 433 (the one that I wrote to him, i.e. John of Antioch”...), - this letter (epist. 39, pag. 173 - 181) contains the same teaching as in the passages we are considering under numbers 21 and 22. In a letter to John of Antioch, Cyril refutes the accusation brought against him that he and the Apollinarians recognize the flesh of Jesus Christ as brought from heaven (Er. 39, pp. 177 - 180), admits the confusion of God the Word with the flesh and His suffering according to the Divinity, and in view of this he tries to reveal as accurately as possible the doctrine of two natures in Christ and the impassibility of the Divine according to God. His own nature. “There is one Lord Jesus Christ,” says, for example, Cyril (page 180), although the difference of natures is not ignored.” “At the same time, we all confess that God the Word remains impassive, although He Himself was visible... assimilating to Himself the suffering of His own flesh,” and the confirmation of which is explained in the text: “I breathed My cloaks on the wounds,” and so on. (Isa. 50:6). If we now compare the content of excerpts from sermons 21 and 22 with the content of this letter, then it will be clear that they are even literally similar in expression and thought. The same passages from St. The Scriptures, the same arguments of reason, why it is impossible to recognize confusion, dissolution or merging. Both there and here, a reference to the letters of St. Athanasius the Great to the Epictetus, containing a clear confession of the two natures in Christ. When writing, by the way, an exact list of the message itself was sent. - In view of such close similarity of the 21st and 21st conversations with the letter to John of Antioch - and it was read to the Alexandrians on April 23, 433 - one can unmistakably conclude that those two conversations, excerpts of which we have under numbers 21 and 22, were delivered to the Alexandrians either on the same day (April 23) or on the nearest date subsequent day. Otherwise, it is difficult, and even impossible, to find a reason to carry out these conversations. It must be borne in mind, however, that the teaching about the non-confusion and non-dissolution of the Divine and human natures in Jesus Christ constitutes the last final stage in the development and disclosure of Christological issues. Christological disputes began with the concepts of “Theotokos” and “God-bearer®”, and only in the last phase of development they reached the concepts of “dissolution” and “mixing”. Further, the accusation against Cyril that he preaches a “confusion” or “dissolution" of natures could only be made by Eastern bishops and scientists, who believed that there was a very sharp division between natures in Jesus Christ. On the part of all other bishops, other kinds of objections could and were actually heard, as we will see below. Meanwhile, negotiations and correspondence between the East and Cyril began, as we know, in 433; reproaches against Cyril for allegedly allowing the “dissolution" of natures were heard precisely after the reconciliation of John with Cyril, as can be seen precisely from the (39th) letter of Cyril to the Archbishop of Antioch. Consequently, Cyril, until 433, could not officially know about such accusations leveled against him in Antioch, and therefore could not raise these Christological questions as the subject of conversations with Alexandrians, since in Alexandria itself there could be no mention of such suspicions about Cyril’s teaching. Here, contrary accusations were heard from Cyril regarding his reconciliation with the Eastern: namely, that he had changed his previous teaching and, to please the Eastern, recognized two Christs or two Sons, Cyril and many other bishops and presbyters who were of the same opinion with him suspected the same. We attribute the origin of passages numbered 21 and 22 to the 2nd half of 433. “I do not accept dissolution,” says Cyril in passage number 21, “for this is alien to the apostolic faith and the right tradition of God. Dissolution produces the destruction of natures. The ineffable “unity”, professed by the right-thinking, preserves both natures unmerged, and recognizes one, although in both (natures) Christ seen, together God and Himself, who became man, and not two Christs, but one only, united, but not dissolved. For if two natures, being different in essence, dissolved into one mixture, then neither of them would would have been preserved, but both, having merged, would have been destroyed. But having united, they did not establish either separation from each other or separation. They separated and separated (one from the other) only at the moment of death 130: the soul from the body, descending with the Divinity into hell 131, and the body from the soul, being laid in a new tomb, - according to the false words of Christ, who says: “Destroy this Church in three days.” I will raise you up” (John 2:19). And the church is really destroyed during the three-day stay in the tomb, as He himself wanted; and again he raised her up and entered into unity with her in an indescribable and ineffable way, not mixing with her, or turning into her (actually “being fleshed out”), but preserving in himself the unmerged substantial features of alien natures. For indeed the natures were not mixed." Then Cyril cites the testimony of St. Athanasius as follows: "when two alien natures were preserved in the one Christ the Son of God, and did not merge, and did not perish, and were not separated." him into unity, not through change, not through dissolution, not through confusion, not through merging, not through transformation into something else, not through change, not through destruction (disappearance) or turning into flesh, but through ineffable and inexpressible unity.” – r. 1112 – 1113. "The Virgin gave birth to us Immanuel, says passage No. 22, in Divinity of one substance with the Father, in humanity of one essence with us 132 , in Divinity - impassive, in humanity - subject to suffering. For although God the Word appropriates to Himself the sufferings of His own body and transfers (them) to Himself, He Himself, however, remains within the limits of dispassion. Although you hear, that He says: “My capes were blown on the wounds, and My cheeks on the blows, but I did not turn away My face from the cold of spit 133” (Is. 50:6), however, think that He did not endure anything like this by His own nature, but more correctly, He made them His own, like the blows of His own body. For whose property is the body, to Him is rightly attributed that which is the property of the body, excluding sin. So, although the Word became incarnate, yet according to Divinity He remains impassive. But having assimilated to Itself, by virtue of necessity, the state of its body, It is considered to have suffered in the flesh, although, since it is thought of as God, It is not subject to suffering. Consequently, they do not understand that, since It is God, dispassionateness is preserved, but suffering for us is also attributed, precisely according to the flesh, since It, being God by nature, became flesh, or perfect man. For who was it that said to the heavenly Father and God: “You did not desire sacrifices and offerings, but you made the body for Me; You did not require burnt offerings or sins. Then said: “Behold, I will come...do Thy will, O God” (Ps. 39:7 – 9) For, as God, who does not have a body, He says that He has prepared a body for Himself in order to bring it for us, to heal us all with His own plague, according to the word of the prophet.” – R. 1116. Somewhat later than the sermons we have just examined, a sermon “on the incarnation of God the Word,” numbered 15, was preached to the Alexandrians. This sermon, like the two previous ones, mainly aims to accurately reveal and establish the Orthodox Christological teaching, defended and clarified by Cyril in the last period of the Nestorian struggle. This is the teaching about the non-confusion and non-fusion of natures in Jesus Christ. In this sermon, even more clearly than in the two previous ones, Cyril makes it clear that his word is intended to reject and refute the accusations that malicious people brought against him, claiming that he allowed the dissolution of natures in Jesus Christ 134. “We do not believe at all,” he says, “as some of the heretics and madmen think, who merged one with the other - both the Divinity and humanity,” and so on. (p. 1092). Consequently, the sermon refers to the time after the conclusion of reconciliation with the Easterners. But at the same time, this sermon contains some new points, in comparison with both previous conversations, in which Cyril is justified. “We do not divide into two Sons the one God and our Savior, the God of the Word made man and incarnate,” he says (p. 1092). But it is obvious that such an objection to Cyril could no longer be made by the Easterners, for whom the strict distinction in Jesus Christ of the Divine and human natures was by no means a heretical teaching, at least until 433. This was even the main thesis of Antiochene theology in Christological teaching - a thesis that served as a stumbling block for reconciliation with the teaching of the Alexandrian archbishop. The harshness of this view was smoothed out only after they became familiar with Cyril’s theology and under his influence, which was in 433. - From Cyril’s letters we know that reproaches of this nature were revealed by the Orthodox bishops, precisely regarding the reconciliation of Cyril with him. John of Antioch. Thus, for many, Cyril’s acceptance of John’s “confession of faith" seemed suspicious, in which (the confession) spoke of two natures in Jesus Christ. Hence, rumors arose that Cyril had betrayed the teachings hitherto defended by him, that he had accepted a statement of faith that was not alien to the errors of Nestorius. In a letter, for example, to Akakios of Melitina (ep. 40, p. 181 - 201) and especially in the 2nd to Success (ep. 46 p. 240 - 245) Cyril clearly defends himself against suspicions of his acceptance of Nestorian errors and the confession of two sons (precisely through the assumption of two natures in Jesus Christ). complaints, then even more so could such doubts arise in the Orthodoxy of the Alexandrian pastor among short-sighted and undiscerning people. And of course there were such doubts in Alexandria itself. For the local zealots of the faith, the reconciliation of their pastor with the Eastern ones and especially the recognition of John’s “confession of faith” by the Orthodox might have seemed more tempting. To calm the minds and conscience of both flocks, Kirill spoke with a church word. From this we can think that this sermon was preached a short time after reconciliation with the Easterners, i.e. at the end of 433. 1) “Deep, great and truly worthy of wonder is the mystery of piety (faith), most desirable even for the holy angels themselves," says the preacher. Indeed, as the disciple of the Savior says, the angels wish to penetrate into what was preached to us by the prophets about Christ (1 Peter 1:12). It was they who rejoiced and glorified the Lord at the time of His birth from the Holy Virgin, - glorified because of the enormity of mercy and love for mankind poured out on us. It is “the blessed prophet Isaiah who says (25:8): “Death is possible, and God will take away every tear from every face.” And how he took away every tear from every face, or how he made the ancient curse ineffective and destroyed the hated power of death, the wise Paul teaches us this (Heb. 2:14-15): “Now the children have partaken of flesh and blood, and He sincerely partook of the same, so that by death he will abolish the power of death, that is, the devil, and He will deliver these who, through the fear of death, have been guilty of work throughout their entire life.” 2) What, therefore, does it mean to “sincerely partake of the same" if not, of course, that He, like us, was born of the Holy Mother of God Mary - in flesh and blood? For, being by nature God and the true Word of God and the Father, consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and shining with the highest virtues of His all-superior nature, He, in the image and equality of the One who gave birth, “without reverence by theft to be equal with God, He humbled Himself, received the form of a servant, became from the Holy Virgin in the likeness of humanity, and, having been found in the likeness of a man, humbled Himself even to the point of death, the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:6-7). Consequently, He voluntarily surrendered Himself to humiliation, giving to everyone from His own fullness. He gave himself up for us, not forced by anyone, but voluntarily taking on the image of a slave for our sake, as free by his own nature. He who is greater than every creature has become like us; He who gives life to all things was subject to death, for He Himself is the bread of life and gives life to the world (John. 6, 35); stood with us under the law above the law, God the Lawgiver Himself; became one of those who were born and received the beginning of being, superior to every age and time, or better - the Creator and Maker of centuries. 3) So, how did you become like us? – Having received the body from the Holy Virgin, the body is not soulless, as some of the heretics thought; on the contrary, it is animated by a rational soul. Thus, he came from his wife as a perfect man, except for sin - truly, and not in an apparent and illusory way, without ceasing to be God and without being deprived of what he always was, is and will be, i.e. Divinity. That is why we call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God. For, as blessed Paul says: “There is one God and Father, of Whom are all things, and one Jesus Christ, by whom are all things” (1 Cor. 8:6), then we do not divide into two sons the one God and our Savior, the God of the Word made man and incarnate: we do not believe as some heretics and madmen think, merging one with the other - both Divinity and humanity, and admitting that God the Word has passed into the nature of the flesh, or the flesh has changed into the nature of the Divine - we do not believe so because the Word of God is immutable and completely unchangeable. But since the Word of God truly accepted into unity with Himself from the Holy. Mary’s flesh, animated by a rational soul, therefore He is confessed to be ineffably incarnate and made man.” 4) Therefore, it is sufficient for the right and irreproachable confession of your faith to call and confess the Holy Virgin Theotokos; to add that She is also the Mother of Man is unnecessary and useless. We are taught to confess one God even after the incarnation, as Paul teaches: “There is one God, and one Advocate for God and men” (1 Tim. 2:5). We affirm that the Word of God has immutably become man. Namely, as far as the nature of the flesh is concerned, the Holy Virgin gave birth to her and to us a body of the same essence. But even in the title “Theotokos" this is quite clearly understood: for it was not the naked Divinity that the Holy Virgin gave birth to, but the one who entered into union with the flesh of the Word of God. And she is thought of as the Mother of God in no other way than in this manner, so that the confession of incarnation is certainly brought to mind (implied). Then the truth will be revealed that the Holy Virgin became the Mother of God - the Virgin, who gave birth in an extraordinary way to the one Christ, who, like us, partook of flesh and blood and was consubstantial with Her and us in humanity, since the flesh was from (έχ) the Mother of God Mary - but similar in essence, as it seemed to some heretics, but consubstantial, i.e. - from our essence, for it is said: “from he receives the seed of Abraham" (Heb. 2:16). And the likeness of things does not mean true man, but the likeness of the Son of man, as Daniel says (10:16). The Apostle did not teach us likeness; on the contrary, he says: “the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself redemption for all" (1 Tim. 2:5-6). And that He is consubstantial with God and the Father in Divinity, our fathers truly confessed this, calling Him consubstantial with the Father, and not co-essential.” 5) “So, when we say: “Mother of God,” we obviously unnecessarily and unnecessarily add “Mother of Man.” For, as I said, the first saying is sufficient, which contains the confession of our entire sacrament and takes away from the slanderers of the truth any reason for perversion of words. And heretics have a habit of redoing everything that is correctly said in a perverted way. And we are not doing anything strange by asserting, that they are mistaken in interpreting the Divine Scriptures themselves. So, we should introduce terms with appropriate and well-intentioned discussion. But how they misinterpret is not important to us. Let them themselves hear what the prophet says: “Woe to those who say evil is good, and good is evil” (Is. 5:20). Light has no communion with darkness, and Christ has no agreement with Belial (1 Cor. 6:14)." - Having then invited his flock to follow the right path of faith, the preacher ends his word with praise to God. - pp. 1089 - 1096. Of Kirill's sermons on various occasions, conversation number 10 remained unexamined by us. It has the following inscription: όμιλία είς το μυστιχόν δέιπνον cod. Wat. Add, χαί είς τόν νιπτήρα τή ά ϒ ία έ ) i.e. “a conversation at the Last Supper” (Vatican. The list adds: “and at the washing of feet on the holy fifth day”). From the content of this conversation it is undoubtedly clear, firstly, that it appeared after disputes with Nestorius and, moreover, after a considerable time 136, and secondly, that it was said by Cyril in extreme old age. So, Cyril says in one place (p. 1021 - 1024): “So, oh, good-obedient children, I beg you, help me with your prayers, - me, tired of life, bent and crooked (in gait), so that the Lord may grant me to speak in accordance with the truth.” Both of these circumstances, and especially the last, give us reason to put this sermon in the last place, in chronological order, that is, to attribute it to the end of the saint’s life. Her touchingly kind, fatherly tone, characteristic of splendid old age, also indicates ego. Kirill here completely affects the hearts of the listeners, touches the heart, and not the mind, as in other sermons. – How to understand, further, the expression: τή ά ϒ ία έ ? Does this mean - On the holy molasses, or simply “on the 5th day of the week" according to the counting of days that was adopted in Alexandria? We accept the latter and affirm that the “5th day of the week" of Cyril is equal to our “Thursday”. The following note on the counting of the days of the week in the 6th Easter conversation leads us to this understanding of the matter, ή, page 520. “And he will present,” says in the indicated place Cyril, “on the 8th day, that is, after the sabbath according to the law; for this is the time of the appearing of our Savior, since Christ is the end of the law and the prophets. For this reason, I believe, to express it as accurately as possible, we call the 8th day the Lord’s day, as having forever concluded the time of the law and opening for us the beginning of the Lord’s times, in which everything became new.”... The Day of the Lord (K υριαχή ήμέρα), as can be seen from the dates of each Easter sermon, is Sunday, or Sunday. But if Sunday was considered the eighth day, opening the beginning of a new time, then, consequently, Cyril counted the days of the week not from “Monday,” as we do, but from “Sunday.” And according to this count, the 5th day of the week is equal to our “Thursday.” So, we can translate the expression τή ά ϒ ία έ: “on Holy Thursday.” “What could be more delightful and pleasant for those who love God and thirst for true life,” the preacher begins, than to continually enjoy communication with God and find peace in His divine law? If those who load themselves with food and drink and indulge in their precarious pleasures acquire flourishing health and a magnificent body, then how much more enlightened will those who care for souls and are brought up on the water of calm, that is, on the divine sermon, clothed in gilded and speckled clothing, as the prophet said?... So, when in the spiritual race have we reached the completion of the life-giving mysteries, and when have already been offered to us from The Lord, as a parting gift to immortality, gifts that are higher than any word, then all of us, receiving unspeakable pleasures and participants in the heavenly calling, having clothed ourselves with the purity of faith, as a wedding garment, will joyfully hasten to the Last Supper. Christ hospitably welcomes us today, Christ serves us today, Christ the lover of mankind revives us.” Then, continuing the begun speech about Christ in the form of an antithesis, the preacher asks the listener in conclusion: “Do you want me to show you the greatest sign of what we are talking about? Listen no longer to our brevity and simplicity, but to the great voice of those who foretold this... Thus, Solomon, the great among the kings, was sent as a messenger before the king of kings; he who occupied the highest throne declared the secret of the Most High; crowned with purple and a royal diadem, proclaimed the commandment of the Provider and Presenter of kings. Do you see the dignity of a messenger?! Delve also into the power of what they have shown you." Having then cited words from Wisdom (9 chapters 1 - 6 v.), St. Cyril says: "Here, beloved, are the images of what is happening now! Here are the riches of a luxurious feast! The generous giver is welcome, divine gifts are offered, the mystical meal is prepared, the life-giving cup is filled. The King of Glory sends for guests, the Son of God receives, God the Word incarnate asks; The hypostatic Wisdom of God the Father, who creates for herself a church not made by hands, divides her own body like bread and offers her life-giving blood like wine. Oh, terrible mystery, oh ineffable economy! O sacred condescension! O unsearchable mercy! The Creator offers Himself as food, Life Itself gives Himself as food and drink to mortals." After this, in a dramatic form, a lengthy and tender appeal from Wisdom is conveyed and an invitation to the faithful to partake of the meal prepared by Her. "Come, eat My Body, cries God the Word, and drink the wine that I have dissolved for you! I Myself prepared for food, I dissolved Myself to those who wished. Being life, I voluntarily became flesh; being the Word and hypostatic image of My Father, I, of my own free will, became a partaker of flesh and blood for the sake of your salvation. Taste and see that Christ is Lord. You have tasted the fruit of disobedience and have known that the food of the evil adviser is bitter; Now you have tasted the fruit of obedience, which destroys evil, and you have learned that it is much better and more beneficial to obey God. You did not eat at the right time and died; eat in good time and have life. Taste and see that the Lord is good. Exchange experience for experience. Having experienced evil, you understood the meaning of disobedience; by experiencing goodness, you acquire the understanding of obedience. Taste and see that the Lord is good. Adam unreasonably stretched out his hand, did not bow to the saving commandment, did not want to know the orders of the Master..., extended his hand, terribly changed, sold the bliss that he possessed, and capriciously, at a high price, bought himself a miserable death, through himself he became the culprit of the foretold death, although at that time it still had no power over him.... He was a participant in immortality by grace, but by good will he became prey corruption... Because of all this, I again offer to those who died from disobedience the fruit of obedience to Me. Taste and see that the Lord is true in everything... Consume Me, O life, and you will have life; taste life unfailing, for for this purpose I came, that you might have life, and have it more abundantly. Taste My bread, for I am the life-giving grain of the seed and the bread of the animal. Drink the wine that I have dissolved for you, for I am the drink of immortality. Leave the foolishness of wickedness and you will live... By obedience you catch happiness, damaged by the self-will of your ancestor. He was expelled from paradise for unbelief, you enter through good faith... Seek wisdom in order to have life, and correct your thoughts in My knowledge (Me). If anyone is not understanding, let him fall to Me and know the light of truth." With the words of Scripture, God the Word further shows his divine dignity and sonship and again invites believers to the divine meal: "Taste the bread that renews your nature; drink wine - the delight of immortality... I have become a true vine in your generation, so that you may bear fragrant fruits in Me. Eat of the fatness of My food and You will become fat. I am the Lord, who has given food to all flesh, but especially to those who fear Me." “Have you understood this, beloved? Are the unspoken mysteries of this most holy day clearly revealed by the Lord’s words? Or do you wish to contemplate in the most decent manner the glorious things of this day?’ In view of this, the preacher invites his listeners to assist him with their prayers and to rise in thought to the glorious Zion, to that peak where He who holds the ends of the earth prepared Himself for the mystical supper, educationally brought up in Egypt voluntarily sacrifices Himself, having tasted the mystery image reveals, as a performer of images, the truth, offering immediately making Himself the food of life, - Having then conveyed the Gospel story (Matthew 26, 26 - 28) about the Last Supper, the Saint exclaims: “O wonderful spectacle, oh sacred sacrament and oh divine mystical guidance! He appeared through writing, he accomplished spiritually; he raised children through prototypes, he did good through deeds; in Zion he fulfilled the law of writing, from Zion he proclaimed the law of grace." Having then outlined the story of the Evangelist John (13:4-5) about washing the feet at the Last Supper, the preacher says: "What is more incredible than this? What could be more terrible? Dress yourself in light like a robe, gird yourself with ribbon; he who has enclosed the water in the clouds and sealed the abyss with its terrible name, wraps himself in a belt, collects the waters of the sea like fur, pours the water into the cup; who established his dwellings on high on the waters, washed the feet of his disciples in the water; he who measured the sky with a span and the earth containing a handful of pure palms wiped the soles of the slaves. To whom every knee bows, in heaven, on earth and under the earth, he bowed his neck to his servants. The angels saw and were amazed; The sky looked and was afraid, the creature looked and trembled." The picture of Peter's conversation with the Lord is touching. The Supreme One considers himself unworthy to receive a bath from the Lord. “Will not my pitiful nature perish from horror and trembling if I allow this? Will not every creature reprove me if I dare to do this? Do not burden your servant, Lord, so that the sun does not see Peter’s frivolity did not fade because of me. Have mercy, O Lord, on your servant Peter: I am not worthy to be called your servant.” “You don’t know what I’m doing now, Peter,” says the Savior; but you'll find out later. Therefore, allow this sacred service to touch you too. If not, you have no part with me, - Having heard this, the Supreme One was perplexed as to what to answer: Woe is me, Lord, difficulties will surround me: self-will is hard, contradiction is harmful, refusal entails punishment, but understanding is beyond my strength. However, let the commandment of God prevail, and not the stubbornness of the slave... Let me take part in your venerable will, so that I may not be deprived of your joy. I will put my feet up, I will stretch out my hands, I will bow my head, just let me not lose a part of my Lord... Let every creature know that by washing I buy today the Kingdom of Heaven." Having then conveyed the words of the Lord to the disciples about mutual love (John XIII, 12 - 15), the preacher on behalf of the Savior continues: "Therefore, imitate Me, your Lord, so that through this My sacred action you were participants in the divine nature. This is the best path of ascension I show you. I once descended to earth to give the beginning of existence and prosperity to your race, when, taking dust from the earth, I created man and his spirit on earth; and now I deign to descend to strengthen the shaken foundation of My creation. I have placed enmity and a curse between the deceiver and the deceived... I have directed your steps to tread on snakes and scorpions and all the power of the enemy, and nothing will harm you... I am the Lord who gives grace to the humble and turns away from arrogance. Therefore I inspire you to love one another. I repeat again, beloved, says the preacher, ending the explanatory part of the conversation, you see what the greatness of this glorious day is, to which you are invited - the holiday itself, the presence of God, the sacred rite of a terrible sacrifice, the gifts of immortality and the guarantee of endless life.” Therefore, my beloved and participants in the heavenly inheritance, the preacher cries, let us imitate, as far as possible, the Principal of our salvation and the Finisher of Jesus. Let us love humiliation, which leads to heights, goodwill, which unites you with God, and undefiled faith in the divine sacraments. Avoid division, avoid strife, reject from yourselves all kinds of wicked new teachings, especially those invented by idle talkers and captivators of souls, the servants of Satan. I mean those, explains the preacher..., who are armed against our spiritual brotherhood and dear silence, rebelliously disturbing your God-protected city, whom let the wicked barking destroy the One who tamed the sea with a word, who utter blasphemies against Christ, our true God, attempting to destroy the hope of our salvation that we have in Christ, that is, the resurrection. And where are now these lone wolves... who deny, because of physicality, the oneness of Christ with the Almighty Father? Therefore, let the chatterboxes and the foolish tell us, on whose body do the sheep of the Church feed and on what springs do her pets rest? So, if the body of God is distributed, then in it, therefore, is the true God, Christ the Lord, and not a simple man, or an angel, or a spruce and one of the incorporeal, as they say, will serve together. And if the drink is the blood of God, then He is no longer God, just one of the worshiped Trinity, the Son of God, but God the Word made man. If food is the body of Christ and drink is the blood of Christ, and at the same time Christ is only a simple man, as they claim, then how is the sacred meal offered to those who come to eternal life? How does He (Christ) remain here and everywhere and not diminish? One simple body would never exude life to those who receive it. But maybe we will be called false witnesses before God, who loves the truth - us who proclaim the truth and teach the Divine mysteries?! But may divine grace be merciful to you as you remember the Divine in this most holy celebration. Therefore, let us accept the body of Life Itself, which for our sake dwelt in our body (John 1:14), and let us drink His holy blood for the remission of our sins and for participation in His immortality, believing that He Himself remains with us as Priest and sacrifice, Himself offering and offered and acceptable and distributed”... In conclusion, the doxology. – p. 1016 – 1029. Text of the sermons of St. We read Cyril in Greek, in the 77th volume of “Curs. compl. Patrol. gr. Migne; Therefore, we will always point out references to this 77th volume of the Migne edition. In the same volume we also read the letters of St. Kirill, to which we will often refer. In the references we indicate both the number of the sermon (or letter) according to the Migpe edition, and the part of the sermon (under the letters α ’ β ’ϒ and dd-) and the page. In this case, the initials h. r. accepted by us as an abbreviation of words: homilia paschalis; h. d. – initials of words: homiliae diversae; er. – epistola. Pages are indicated according to the Migpe edition, not Obertovsky. Further, all references to sermons and in general this or that place in the 77th volume. Curs. compl M. will be placed in the text itself - in view of their large number and the almost impossibility of calculating a place for them under the line. Only notes and excerpts, as well as references to works with lengthy titles, will be placed below the line. We generally obtain this or that information about Cyril from the following sources: Church History of Socrates Scholasticus; Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius; Menaion-Cheti under June 9 (life compiled according to Nicephorus Callistus); biography of Kirill in Christ. Read 1840, compiled mainly from the Chetya-Minea; monograph by Archimander. Porfiria (Popova) in Prib. to Creation Holy Father, vol. 13; Historical Teaching about the Fathers of the Church, Philareta Chernigov; Mich. Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, 1740, etc. We do not find direct information about this from historians; but judging by the fact that in 403 Cyril was already a presbyter and was present with his uncle, the archbishop. According to Theophilus at the council that condemned Chrysostom, one can think that he was about 30 years old at that time; then, in one of the sermons delivered in old age (h.d. 10, pp. 1021 - 24), Cyril spoke about his deep old age, bent over and unsteadiness in his gait; therefore, we can think that he was about 70 years old at that time (i.e., around 440–444). If so, then the years of Kirill’s birth fall exactly at the time we indicated. Transmitted in the Chetya-Menaia, in which the life of Kiril was compiled according to Nicephorus Callistus (12th century), and then in the Christian. Read 1840, information that Cyril, after his initial education in Alexandria, traveled to Athens, where he listened to excellent speakers and philosophers and acquired extensive information from them - that from there he traveled to Jerusalem, to the local bishop John, to learn from him the high rules of Christian piety and the exploits of a holy life - this information cannot be verified by criticism. It is most likely that Kirnll received his education in Alexandria itself, namely either in the Alexandrian school, where Didymus (327 - 395) was then famous for his extensive learning, followed by Rodon (395 - 405), or from the Alexandrian philosophers, where at that time all philosophers were eclipsed by Hypatia (Abbr. C. Ist. VII, 15). This is also indicated by the close in spirit kinship of Cyril’s preaching works with the spirit and direction of both secular and theological scholarship and the views of the school and church of Alexandria. – But we will talk about this below. “If what has been said does not seem entirely clear to anyone, then here we are, zealously imitating those who are working on what is now hidden from time ago, and will present the most understandable reasoning about what is being said.” Of course, in the form in which these sciences were at that time - in textbooks. “Almagest” (με ϒἅ λη σύνταξις) by Ptolemy, in the works of Eratosthenes, Aristillus and Timocharus, Hipcharkhus and others. The personality of Hypatia, who was a bright exception, says nothing against the general state of Neoplatonism in Alexandria at this time. At Porfiry (Popov) in Prib. to Creation Ooh. Ts. vol. 13, p. 251, Here the learned patrolologist says that Cyril, after living in the desert, was ranked among the clergy by Theophilus (about 400) and, on his instructions, often preached the word of God. – Further, as can be seen from Cyril’s 33 letters (to Akakiy Berry), Cyril was present at the council of 403, which condemned Chrysostom: “...essem ego nnus astantium’: (p. 159), he says about himself. Le Quien Oriens Christianus 1740; XXIV, p, 407: “Theophilipatrum sui successor fuit magnus Cyrillus quum Isidore teste ep. 25 Lib I vitam monasticam prins amplexus asset? Eccleciasticisque disciplines sub Serapione monacho operam dedisset.” In Porfiry, Prib. to TV vol. 13, p. 251; at Filar. Chernigov., Ist. teaching... § 212–th, p. 91. – We ourselves met in many letters. These are the passages: from Lamentations: h. r. 26, r. 921; b. r. 7, r. 548; h. r. 11, r. 633; from Baruch: h. r. 4, r. 469; h. r. 12, r. 664; h. r. 18, r. 820; h. r. 22, r. 856; from 1 Samuel: h. r. 8, r. 564; h. r. 12, r. 689; h. r. 17, p 784; h. r. 18, 816; from 2 Samuel: h. r. 23, r. 880 – 882; from 1 Kings c.: h. r. 12.689; h. r, 17, r. 773; h. r. 26, p, 921; from 3 books. Ezra: h. r. 18" 808; from Tobit:h. r. 19, r. 833; h. r. 27, r. 936. Le Quien, Oriens christianus, pag. 407: Theophilus lethargia obit 18 mensis Paorhi seu 15 Ostobris, Honorio Augusto IX et Theodosio Aug. V coss., quum sedisset appos 27, menses 2, dies 24, hoc est anno 28 inchoato, juxta atque fertur in tabulis Theophanis et Nicephori laterculo patriarcharum Alexandrinorum. – Wed. Abbr. book VII, ch. 7. Since the time of the 2nd Ecumenical Council, the Apostolic See of Alexandria gave up its first place among the eastern bishops to the See of Constantinople. Its high priests bore the title of “pope” or “archbishop”. – Ibid. “Preachers in the Patriarchate Alexander.” Porfiry Uspensky, page 3. Le Quien, Or. Christ., p/ 377… Quum Alexandria sub Ptolemais principibus, ac sub Romanis dienceps, viris scientiarum peritissimis abundaret, imprimisque mathematicis et astronomis… By the way, even Theophilus, Cyril’s predecessor, in 391 destroyed the idolatrous churches in Alexandria, Kanop and other cities to the ground The following essay is based mainly on the monograph by the Reverend. Porfiry Uspensky: Preachers in the Patriarchate of Alexandria, pp. 1 – 7 Church History of Socrates, book. VII, ch. 13; Ch. 16, At 7 Easter. prop. Cyril calls the Egyptian land “the nurse of the Sunflower” (τροϕός τής ύϕ ’ ήλίϕ), pag. 548. In the sermon: “what rich man will be saved.” Church History, Book. VII, ch. 7. Archim. Porfiry Popov in the monograph: St. Cyril of Alexandria (Added to the Creation of the Holy Fathers, vol. 13); also Le Quien in the work Oriens Christianus (XLII, pag-. 360), This last one (Le Quien), having set out the story we conveyed from the story of Socrates about the act of Cyril with the Novatians, notes this: Socratos, in Novatianos alioqui propensior... (“generally disposed towards the Novatians “...), and then conveys the story of a similar act with the Novatians in their bishop Rusticulum of Pope Celestine in Rome - for which, however, no one condemned the pope for exceeding episcopal power. Socrates’s bias towards the Novatians, we add, is evident from his similar condemnation of the act of St. John Chrysostom with the Novatians; see Church. Histor. books. VI, chap. 21. Curs. compl. R. gg. Mign. r. 1103, no. 1: ... in quo manifeste coopeabantur noquissimi spiritus… Curs. cjmpl., h. div. 18, a’ r. 1101; – inscription of the 2nd (β ’) speech. However, one can think based on the content of the 2nd speech (“the divine source of which we have in the church of St. Mark the Evangelist“...) that the relics were transferred from Alexandria, or even more accurately, from some other place, as the expression about the relics of the martyrs in the same speech makes clear: ήν όμού τά λείϕανα τών ά ϒ ίων μαρτύρων έν ένί τόπϕ χείμενα ... Beginning of the 2nd lesson (p. 1101): “we were not lazy with regard to common speech“... 1st teaching - to the Taveian monks in Canova, or Metaney; in all likelihood (in accordance with note 1) it was said when the relics were just being carried to Menufis, because during a stop in Canova or Metania of the Tavein monastery; The 2nd teaching was also delivered in Canova, or Metania, in the church of St. The Apostles, in all likelihood, 4 days after the 1st (in the sermons themselves and their inscription there is no indication of a close temporal connection between the 1st and the other two sermons, so we can assume that they were delivered in different years, although on the same days of the month) teaching, already before the return of Cyril from the village of Menufis and the position of the boor St. relics in a tomb or shrine, which of course took at least three days (p. 1101): “they transferred and laid the remains of St. martyrs in the Church of the Evangelists, having built, as usual, a tomb (μνημείον) for martyrs.”... The 3rd lesson is in the church of St. Evangelists (near the village of Menoufis), the day after the 2nd teaching, as stated in the inscription of the speech and in the concluding words of the 2nd teaching: “let us therefore gather together tomorrow and honor the blessed martyrs.”... This is indicated by the meaning of the reproof, although Christians can also be understood as superstitious. “In Alexandria, Socrates reports (C. Ist. Book VII, Chapter 15), there was one woman named Hypatia, the daughter of the philosopher Theon. She acquired such learning that she surpassed contemporary philosophers, was the successor of the Platonic school, descended from Plato, and taught all philosophical sciences to those who wished. That is why those who wanted to study philosophy flocked to her from all sides. By her education, having a self-confidence worthy of respect, she appeared with modesty even before the rulers, and she did not show any shame in appearing among men: for for her extraordinary modesty everyone respected her and marveled at her.” Abbr. C. East. book VII, chapter 13 (the story of the murder of Hierax by the Jews, the burning of the “Alexander Church” and the beating of Christians at this time). Therefore, about the archim. Porfiry (Popov) in his monograph on Cyril (p. 255 in Appendix to Tv. S v. O.o) notes: “there is no doubt that in this case the saint acted according to the rights granted by the emperors to the bishops of Alexandria. Otherwise, the Jews would soon return to Alexandria, and Prefect Orestes, who was extremely annoyed by this expulsion, would not be afraid to allow them entry into the city and protect them with an armed hand, if the expulsion was a matter of self-will alien to all rights and illegal interference in the circle of foreign power. But even in his report to the king, as can be seen from the words of Socrates, he mainly expressed his grief only that the city unexpectedly lost so many inhabitants, traces, and pointed out the disadvantages for the city of the expulsion of the Jews.” The historian Socrates, reporting on these events (book V40; II, chapters 13, 14, 15 and 16), does not determine exactly the time of their occurrence; but judging by the fact that the first of the evil actions of the Jews indicated by him happened earlier (by several months) than the murder of Hypatia, committed in 415, and the second, as he says, a little time later,” that is, after the death of Hypatia, it must be assumed that the time of the villainy of the Jews and Cyril’s fight against them dates back precisely to the years 412 - 422; The very break in Socrates’ story about the atrocities of the Jews coincides with the break in the harsh denunciations of the Jews in Cyril’s sermons. Socrates also conveys other information from the relationship of Orestes to Cyril and Cyril to Orestes (chapter 14), which is not important for you. This is apparently indicated by Hypatia’s letter to Cyril (epist. 88, pag-. 589), which, although it should be called forged (says, for example, about Nestorius), nevertheless, by its fact, shows that in ancient times they looked at the relationship of the persons in question differently than some do now. Cirillus von Alexandria ...Mainz, 1881, - we are based on the review of this work by prof. Lebedev, in Prib. to Creation Holy Father, 1882, part IV, pp. 546 – 562. Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, XXIV, p. 407: Ad annum usque 417 Romanae sedis communionis (Cirillus) exsors fuit, quum sansti Joanis Chrysostonu nomen in diptycha fasta referre obstinatius abnueret. Tandem vero, Isidoro praesertim Pelusiota suadente, senctissimo illo pontifise meliora sentiens, admissus fuit a Zosimo papa, anno 419. Porfiry (Popov) in his famous monograph (p. 301, in “Appendix to the Works of St. O.O., 13th”) incorrectly assigns the time of this event to 438; in this case it would not be clear how St. Cyril entered into such close relations with Pope Celestine (regarding the heresy of Nestorius) and received. such important powers come from him. In the writings of Thierry (Nest. and Eut. part 1, p. 55), the adoption of Cyril into communion is attributed to Pope Celestine. The text of Gennady’s testimony itself is presented somewhat differently in comparison with the text. read in Curs. compl. Vol. h. VII, sar. 57. H. d, 4, r. 993: “and having indulged (it is said about Nestorius) in such deeds, you did not know the Creator, intending to turn the universe upside down with your false syllogisms,” etc. The entire heresy of Nestorius is produced by Cyril from the rational direction of the Antiochians. H. d. 15, r. 1093, ε ’,,So, speaking of the Mother of God, we obviously unnecessarily and unnecessarily add the “man-born”. For, as I said, the first utterance is completely sufficient, containing in itself the confession of our entire sacrament and not giving the slanderers of the truth any reason for speculation. And heretics, after all, have a custom of turning everything correctly said into an ambiguous way. We are by no means doing anything strange by claiming that they are mistaken and reinterpreting Scripture itself. So we should introduce sayings with due and considerate prudence." H. div. 4, r. 993: “Why should I indulge in various inquisitive undertakings, and not philosophize in accordance with Scripture?... Who (the speech is directed against Nestorius) advised you to proclaim such a cheap reasoning?“... Are you not afraid to ruin the traditions of the Fathers, Evangelists and Prophets?“. For example, at least the 1st letter (pag. 13–36), 4th (p. 44–48) and all sermons in general. How unfair and premature these accusations are can be seen from the fact that critics snatched these phrases from Cyril and considered them out of connection with previous and subsequent thoughts. For example, in the indicated anathema. and 17 Easter. prop. expressions “natural unity” and so on. taken by them without regard to Cyril’s explanations made on these expressions, i.e., that he takes “unity” and “one” in the sense of the “one” Lord Jesus Christ.” Meanwhile, for Nestorius and his party, the reception itself was dry and cold, and all the churches were locked. Before the opening of the cathedral, two more sermons were preached (h. d, 1st and 2nd). “Confess,” Nestorius told the first, that if the Word, the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, was incarnate, then God the Father Himself and the Holy Spirit had to be incarnated with him, because the Trinity is tripartite and singular in its essence." “I will never recognize the God of two months and three months,” Nestorius told the second; I will never worship, like God, a child who suckled his mother’s milk, and fled to Egypt to save his life." – In the works: Nestorius and Eutyches.. Thierry, part 1, pp. 110 – 111. The motivation to open the council before the arrival of the Easterners, as well as all other actions and motives of Cyril in the fight against Nestorius and relations with the “Easterns” before the Council of Ephesus, at the Council itself and after it are presented by the author of the work “Nestorius and Eutyches...” (Amedée Thierry), in our opinion, is decidedly incorrect, in a false light. Thierry sees everywhere in Cyril’s actions a personal ambitious motive, a desire to rule, to command... But it is enough to read one volume of Cyril’s works (77), which contains his letters and preaching works, to be convinced of the opposite. We tried to present the actions of the Alexandrian Saint in the true light. Analyzing Cyril’s actions according to these works, we came to the conclusion that the main feature of his character was, so to speak, boundless zeal for the purity and glory of Orthodox teaching, not inferior to any obstacles and difficulties, but selfless, selfless zeal (er. 10, p. 68 - 69; er. 28, p. 145; h. d. 11, p. 1036; h. d. 7, p. 1005, 1108 – 9, etc.), which, according to the Apostle, does not seek its own. If Thierry sees nobility and direct behavior in Nestoril and his party, then why not see this directness, sincerity and selflessness in the actions of Kirill? If a heretic defends his opinions because he is convinced of their correctness, then the more this must be admitted in relation to Cyril, who stood immeasurably higher than Nestorius in theological terms and in the ability to distinguish truth from lies, and in the determination to defend the truth, who represented one of the very rare examples. They reproach Kirill for deliberately not waiting for the eastern ones when opening the cathedral... That's right. But he foresaw that with their arrival such a dangerous evil could happen for the Church of Christ and the empire, which the heresy of Arius could not even imagine... Let us remember with what goals and desires the Antiochians went to the council, how they harmed the actions of the legitimate Council of Ephesus, how they insulted and humiliated Cyril until the year 433.. It is not difficult to imagine what could have happened with their presence at the council: Cyril with his teaching would have been condemned and excommunicated from the Church... Could a man, therefore, foresee a terrible danger for the cause, which he sincerely and selflessly served and in the truth of which he was confident. - Could he remain indifferent at the same time and not use all the means that depended on him to save the truth, even at danger to himself? (John X, 12). This is exactly what happened with Kirill. A historian who does not see true moral motives in Kirill’s actions should, in our opinion, generally deny the presence of good in history... Where could it come from then? The truth defended by Kirill triumphs even now - did it really appear on the basis of evil? But this does not mean that the end justifies the means... Since the significance and personality of Cyril had already become clear to us significantly during the Nestorian struggle, we convey the subsequent story about the actions in the most condensed form. In Porfiry, in monograph. "St. Kirnll of Alexandria (Appendix to the Creation. St. O.o. t. 13th country. 278). ) The evidence regarding the day of Kirill’s death is different. In the “Cheti-Minaia" he is shown on June 9. The compiler of the notes to Gennadius of Massilia also said (in the chapter on Cyril: Curs. p. tom. 57, sar. 57): “demum Sepekh appo 444, die 9 junii, in Domino obdormisit: quo die Graeci ejus memoriam in menologio celebrant; latini vero die 28 januarii, juxta fastos Rom-os.” Le Quien (Orient her), p 409: “Obiit, ut fert Leberatus p. 10 Bge iarii, 32 episcopatus anno, octavo ante Concilium Chalcedonense, Christi 444. Quod confirmant scriptores Aegiptii quibus emortalis ejus dies est tertia Abibi mensis, sive Epiphi 27 junit. Unde Graeci minime curandi sunt, qui in Menacis suis illius memoriam recolunt die 9 ejusdem mensis junii. Pope Celestine (ep. 12, r. 89 – 92 etc.) calls Cyril “an apostolic man, a shepherd who with his vigilance surpassed the glorious examples of his ancestors” (Also in “a letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople”). Prosper and Pope Agathon - “the most glorious defender of the Orthodox faith and a never-ceasing preacher (in Porfiry Popov, p. 304 Appendix to the Works of the Holy O.O. Vol. 13). Evagrius calls Cyril “a man of glorious memory" (C. Ist. book 1, chapter 3). Vigius, martyr and bishop of Trent, borrowed the doctrine of the incarnation from the letters of Cyril to Nestorius. Rusticus, a Roman deacon, in an essay against the acephalites, cites many passages from the letters of St. Cyril to Nestorius and John of Antioch. Even Theodoret was not ashamed to borrow from Cyril. Le Quien - everywhere calls Cyril great (magnus Cyrillus, - Orient christ. p. 407). Another church writer (from “Christ. Read. 1840, p. 391) says that Cyril’s sermons and conversations illuminated his age; and his polemical writings will always illuminate all ages and all churches. Bossuet (ibid.) in one of his speeches says: “It is impossible, listeners, to tell you about this subject (about the Divinity of Jesus Christ) better than how the saints spoke about it. fathers, especially the great and holy Cyril of Alexandria” The Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon, two letters of Cyril to Nestorius and one to John of Antioch, recognized the rule of faith for all times: “this is the truth!” spoke O.o. Ephesus Council after reading the said letters of Cyril, “And we all believe this way; This is the teaching of the entire Church! anathema to him who does not believe so” (Christ. Read. 1847, Part 4, pp. 135 – 140; 482 – 5). The Council of Chalcedon expresses itself about Cyril: ό τής όρθής χαί άμωμήτου πίστεως συνή ϒ ορος (ib.). The Second Council of Constantinople approved all the works of Cyril, as filled with truth and piety (Chronicles Reading 40, p. 391). De scriptor. ecclesiast. cap. LVII – in Curs. compl. Patr. vol. LVIÏ “Homilias plurimas (Cyrillus) etiam composuit, quae ad declarandam a Grae ciae episcopis memoriae commrndatur"… The question of the authenticity of sermons in general, that is, whether they belong to St. Cyril of Alexandria, we consider completely unnecessary. Cyril's sermons, like his personality, have such characteristic, original, local and historical features that they absolutely cannot in any way be attributed to any person other than St. Cyril of Alexandria. A significant part of them refers to Nestoria and her heretical teaching and in the author of the sermons shows a strong and zealous fighter against the said heretic; other sermons speak of the Easterners as adherents of II history as opponents of the author, supported, among other things, by Pope Celestine; the city of Ephesus and John of Antioch, who split away from the council, are mentioned; Still others of the sermons reveal in the author a strong and powerful theologian-Christologist - an exposer of heretics Arius, Apollinaris, etc.; the fourth treats the executions and stiff-neckedness of the Jews, the ridicule and attacks of the Neoplatonists, the errors of astronomers and astrologers, the soothsayers in the village of Mekufis (14 stadia from Alexandria), etc. Based on all this, to whom can such sermons be attributed? Of course, only Alex. the shepherd and the brothel specifically to Kirill. This is vouched for by the character and spirit of the sermons, which correspond with amazing accuracy to the character of St. Cyril of Alexandria. The author of the sermons is the successor of Theophilus; His word is addressed to “Egyptian farmers” and so on. For example, in Porfiry Popov (Appendix to Creative Volume 13, p. 260); from Philaret of Chernigov (Hist. study of oo. ts. § 216); in Thierry (“Nestorius and Eutyches, part 1, p. 33); in prolegomena. for Easter sermons in Curs. compl. Patrol Migne, Antoniya Salmatia, pag. 392 – 93. Both questions we posed are specifically resolved in the so-called prolegomena to the “Easter sermons” of Cyril of Alexandria, composed by a certain doctor of theology Anthony Salmatism in 1618. However, we could neither find definite instructions and firm, unshakable decisions, nor borrow from there. The author of the prolegomena speaks only about the Easter sermons of Cyril, namely about the Easter messages, or letters (and, moreover, in general); but little touches on the issue of Cyril’s Easter sermons. The evidence he provides is that in the ancient Church, since the Council of Nicea (325), there were in the custom so-called “Easter messages”, that is, notifications about the day of the celebration of Easter sent by metropolitans and bishops to their dioceses, and mainly by the primate of Alexandria - that there were such Easter messages. Dionysius, Athanasius, Theophilus, that they were called epistolae heortasticae seu paschales, etc. - all these testimonies, being fair, are not significant for you, as they relate to the pre-Cyril time. Further, it is hardly fair to see in the words of Bishop. Nikephoros: Cyrillom habuisse paschales homilias - a reference (certainly) to the “Easter messages" of Cyril. At the very least, it is unfounded to cite this opinion in support of the 1st, i.e., that the Alexandrian bishops sent Easter messages. Likewise, to assert that in the words of Gennadius of Massilia about Cyril, already cited by us (...homilias plurimae composuisse..)*) again consists of evidence of Cyril’s “Easter messages” - this is at least strange. Finally, we can in no way favere linguis et animis (as Salmatia asks), when he (Salmatia) proves that the Easter sermons we are considering are precisely “Easter letters, or epistles.” Here is his proof: Certe libre Graeci calamo exarati, quibus iu interpretando sumus usi, λό ϒ ους nominant, et declamatorio dicendi genere conscriptos Dionisii teles sermones fnisse Hieronimus fatetur in Catal. essays. script., et res ipsa inspisienti clamat. Semel duntaxat, quod dissimulandum non duxi, Cyrillus noster in προθεωρία Sermonis 22 epistolam nominat, ut orationem tamen esse magis pronuntiet, ut de Dionesianis έορταστιχάς pronuntiat, et Eusebius Lib. 11 cap. 15, Sed homilas primo, post epistolas varie missas dici easdem potuisse, quid vetat?” But the fact is undeniable that all of Cyril’s letters (epistolae) are calamo exaratae sunt, nevertheless neither Cyril nor anyone else calls them - λά ϒ ος; or λο ϒ ίδιον. The word epistola in prop 22. It seems to us that it has a slightly different meaning. In view of this (and much more), we decided to examine these issues ourselves. Church Isgor. Page Z6, 49 and 55 – 58, The author has prolegomena. -, b. 392: “item B. Ambrosii est epistola de Paschale evulgata” ibid. r. 393... Carthaginiensis episcopus caeteris Africae episcopis solemnem indicabat Paschalis diem, quem temen Pont. praescripserat, ut ex ep. 10 Innocentii ad Aurclium epics. Carthagin. Aporte cjnvincitur et seq. In all likelihood, this is indicated by such expressions of St. Kirill on Easter. preaching F χλήρος, εχ τε χρόνων μαχρών ἓ λχουσα συνήθεια, ὄτι δή χαί μάλα προθύμως τόυτο (i.e. άναλθε ϒϒ εσθαι τοϋ χηρύ ϒ ματος ) παρ ’ ήμών εισπράττεοθαι χρή (h. r. 6, a, r. 500). That is, the actual testimony of historians and in general persons more or less familiar with the history of this cathedral (St. Athanasius, Eusebius) and later historians (for example, Socrates). Kharsky: “A look at Jewish and Christian chronology”, etc. p. 11; the same with Gorbachevsky in the “Archaeographic Calendar”, page 5 apud. Le Quien (Oriens Christianus) b. 377: “Quum Alexandria snb Ptolomacis principibus, as sub Romanis deinceps, viris scientiarum peritissimis abundaret, imprimisque mathematicus et astronomis, inde factum est, ut hujus urbis an tistiti injuneta olim proviucia fuctit, cujusque anni paschalem diem investigandi. et ceter. In the Latin translation (there is no Greek text), the passage given is considered as follows. (pag. 382 – 383 in 11 vols. Curs. compl. graec. Mign.) Scrutemini diligentisime, quae ordinavit synodus Nicaena Innus, XIV omnium annorum per decemnovenalem ciclum, ut non fallamur in Luna XIV, cum judies et haereticis, qui dicuntur Tessareskaedecatitae. Et constitutum est in omnibus synodis, practer synodum, Gangrensem et Caesariensem, ut non faceret ulla Ecclecia, voi civitas et omnus regio, coniraria his, quae statula sunt de Pascha in Nicaeno concilio. – Credite mihi, quod si non scripsisset sinodus Nicaena ciclum lunarem primi monsis, cuffiseret cyclus lapidis Selenitis in Percide ad exemplum rationis Paschalis, casus candor, interior cum luna primi mensis crescit et decrescit. Ideo nuntiavi vobis base omnia co quod dubitastis de Luna primi mensis in hoe anno. Ideo praecipio vobis, ne facite Pascha in mense Marti in anno embolismi, sed in IX Col. Man in unite Ecclesiae Catholicae. Eg. Kharsky, Le Quien and others. We read the letter itself from the latter (“Oriens Christianus”), vol. 61, pag. 377; the letter is marked number 94; Kharsky has 64th. Le Quien also gives further testimony from Epiphanius on the same subject (ibid.). We borrow information from Filaret Chernig.: Ist. uch. about oo. c. vol. 2, reference 113, note. 74. For example: h. r. 6, a, r. 500: “E πειδή δέ χαί ήμίν ό τής ίερατείας θεσμός χαί πάτριος ἄνωθεν χλήρος, έχ τε χρόνων μαχρών ἔλχουσα συνήθεια, δτι δή χαί μάλα δίδωσιν έννοείν ϕέρε, οαλπι ϒϒ ος з ύηχέστερον χαί διά τούτο πάλιν άναϕθε ϒ ξώμεθα τού χηρύ ϒ ματος “... h. r. 16, prologus: “άλλ έθει πατρώω χαί άνα ϒ παίως έξευρημένϕ χαταχολουθείν ε ϒ νοχότες "... h. r. 22, prol. “άλλ έχ συνηθείας τής άνωθεν είς τούτο πάλιν χεχλήμεθα.” In the 15th sermon, for example, it is said (p. 729): “And that for those who celebrate so brightly it is very decent and appropriate to have a word that excites us to the feat of a most amazing life in Christ, this is sufficient, as I believe, the divine Psalmist will testify to us, saying: “Blow the trumpet in the new moon, on the auspicious day of your holiday * (Psalm 80:4) XVII Kalend. Maias (όεχα c πτά χαλαν ὂ ώ M α ῒ ων). The Romans celebrated 3 days in a month with special names: Kalepdae (the first day of each month; idus - in the months: - March, May;, July and October - the 15th day of the month, and in others the 13th; Noiae - in March, May, July and October the 7th day, and in the rest the 5th according to your count. The Romans counted the remaining days not according to the dates of the month, but according to which day falls in number before the nearest calends, nones and ides. Moreover, both days that make up the limits (terminus a quo and terminus ad quem) were included here, so that, for example, from the 4th to the 7th, according to the Roman method, the XVII Kalend was equal to our Easter on April 13th. 2nd idiag, in a simple year. We classify Aurelius and Valentinus as African bishops, on the one hand, in Latin. their names, and on the other hand, with the intention of seeing in Aurelius that African bishop to whom Pope Innocent 1st wrote a letter (†417). But it is possible that they were both Egyptian bishops and were only present at the African council. P.r. 2, r. 428:. ; h. r. 13. r. 693:. r. 16 prol., p. 478: "ήχομεν δέ είς μεσον, ού τό έν λό ϒ οις πλατύ χαί ίσότιμον ύπισανούμενον ...; h. r. 18. pag. 801: ήχω πάλιν είς ύμάς , έρών τά έξ ί ϒ αθών έννοιών ύρήματα ...“. Of the many places, we will indicate only a few: h. r. 2, r. 428... r. 18; pag:, 801: .” συ ϒϒ νώμονας δέ τούς άχροώμένους ϒ ένεσθαι πρέπει; h. r. 23, r. 873: ... Eg. h. r. 16, r. 748 (“which does not appear for the brilliance of oratory”); h. R. 18, R. 801 (“not to show off declamation, diction, not because of praise” ...); h. r. 19, r. 821; h. r. 22, r. 857 (“- not because of praise and applause”; “apologizes for mumbled diction”); h. r. 23, r. 857; h. r. 28, r. 941 and h. r. 29, r. 957 (“that he did not mean laurels, praise and applause from the listeners“..) It is impossible to imagine things in such a way that the sermon was first read and then sent out... Besides everything else, is it really possible to allow Kirill to apologize for his mumbling, for example. before the flock of the Abyssinian bishop? N. r. I, p. 401 ( συνά ϒ ων όμή ϒ υριν ) h. r. 7, p. 536 ( ήμάς ένθάδε συνή ϒ α ϒ εν ό χαιρός ); h. р. 18, р. 800; h. р. 19, р. 820; h. р. 27, р. 928; h. р. 29, прелюдия. N. r. 1, r. 400 (..., τρεχέτω ό λό ϒ ος ήμίν h. r. 2, r. 428; h. р. 4, р. 452: h. р. 8, р. 553; h р. 9, р. 577; h. р. 23, прелюд. («и теперь написано нами эго слово-то лоуи5иои); h. р. 29, прелюд. (,,и теперь составлено сие слово“ – ό λό ϒ ος ) At Le Quien, b. 379 – 80 (Chapter LXII de ciera martyrum) also tells the story of the establishment of civil chronology. Confirmation of the conclusions and provisions of Le Quien in this case is the title 87 of Cyril’s letter: epistola sive prologus, scriptus pro Cielo XCV annorum quem sum anno Christi vulgari 437, Diocletiani 153 Cyrillus inchoavit. “A look at Jewish, Christian chronology,” etc., page 11. Hasskago’s 1st opinion is also confirmed by Cyril’s letter (no. 86). “Archaeographic calendar” ... Vilna, 1869. St. Cyril, in his letter to Pope Leo (no. 86) and in his letter to 87, says something completely different; on the contrary, that before Theophilus there was no written document regarding the time of Easter celebration (nullam inde scripturarum quispiam crederet). Vrutseleto is the day of the week from which the next September year began. The solar circle is a 28-year period, after which the simple and high years begin again on the same days of the week as in the previous period. (i.e. 1, 2, 3, and high. X 7 (day seven.)28). The lunar circle is the 19th. Indicton is a 532-year period of time. According to Khavsky (“Look at the chronology“... p. 13) Dionysius the Younger (perhaps “roan”). This is confirmed by Le Quien’s note (in Oriens Christ., we don’t remember on which page) that month. Thoth. (September) was the 1st Egyptian month This relationship between Easter of the September and March years is necessary for us because the calculation of Easter by chronologists is not carried out according to one year, but for some according to March, for others according to September. The numbering of sermons is according to Curs. compl. Migne; abbreviated signs: n 40-tsy - “the beginning of the Pentecost”, pp. seven / - “the week of saving Easter”, as in Cyril; - Saturday - Saturday will save. Easter, the evening of which the fast ends. In the text: άπό έβδόμης χαί έιχάδας τοϋ M εχίρ μηνός; again inconsistency; needed: άπό έννεαχαιδεχάτης M εχίρ μηνός In the text: τή τετράδί τοϋ Fa μενωθί μηνός; also a typo; follows: τή τετράδί τοϋ Fa μουθί μηνός; In Curs. compl. 2 readings: έχχαιδεχάτη and ένδεχάτη the counting of days shows that the latter must be accepted The text says: Far μουθί; – this is most likely a typo. In the text: άπό τρίτης τοϋ Fa μενώθ; in all likelihood, the words are missing - χαί δεχάτης, since otherwise it would turn out that 40, while Kirill has 40 days, has 50 days. Khavskago: “Chronological tables in the 3rd kiiiigs” ... Moscow 1848; Gorbachevsky: “Archaeographic calendar“ ... Vilno, 1869. Both in the first and second sermons of St. the father talks about his duty to preach; but at the same time he fears this great service, as too high for him; trembles at the realization of the obligation to preach for his unworthiness and powerlessness. Showing the importance and greatness of the preaching ministry, which is why awe is aroused in the preacher, Kirill also gives examples similar to himself to justify his timidity - in both sermons. - All these are signs of the early origin of sermons, when the preacher himself, as a beginner, was timid and fearful of his lack of skill. Moreover, the very length of the sermons (very impressive) indicates that they belong to a still young, verbose pen. The desire to go into extensive allegorical explanations (noticeable here) is also characteristic of the first years of Cyril's bishopric. Actually, judging by the strong attacks on double-believers, superstitions and sorcerers, on the soothsayers of the future - against which Cyril most strived before the opening of the Nestorian disputes - the length is large compared to the sermon. He preached Neoplatonic-Stoic philosophy in Alexandria. That is, he uses evidence – “ad hominem”. i.e. simply - licking the pus on the wounds That is, if the heretics claim that the Father did not beget the Son. “Genus” and “difference” are part of the complete “definition” The connection with the previous all subsequent points is that the preacher earlier said about bringing a gift to the Lord - p. 700. In the text it’s the other way around: χαί συνεορτάζοντα τόν χρίστόν - which, given the Russian construction, is inconvenient for literal translation. In parallel with the “lack of water” in the Gospel. In this sermon, St. Cyril, extensively revealing the Christological teaching, had in mind the heresy of Nestorius that had just appeared; this is indicated by the terms: θεοϕόρος, θεοτόχος, caused by this heresy. We don’t say for sure, but it seems the meaning of the comparison is that those who look at a precious stone from different sides see each from their own side as a special center of light refraction (brilliance), while the stone and its center are one. As the above words of the prophet Isaiah (32, I) and the Psalmist David (2, 6) show. The preacher’s thought can be briefly expressed in the following syllogism: Christ reigns over us as a righteous King (Ps. 32, I) and proclaiming the commandment of the Lord (Ps. 2:6); but the king is a man, as can be seen from the story of Saul (1 Samuel 8:5-7) and the words of the prophet. Hosea (13, 11), delivered by God in anger, as punishment for Israel; hence, if Christ is a righteous king and proclaimer of the commandment of the Lord, then He could no longer be a man - a king, like Saul, but was a King - God. Not July 25th (octavo Kalendas Augustas) as shown in Cursus Complet. Migne. The Egyptian month Epiphi is generally equal, as we have already seen, to the month of July, beginning on the 25th of June and ending on the 24th of July. The month of August (from July 25) is equal to Mezor, or Mezori. Therefore, the Egyptian dates are incorrectly rearranged in the other two teachings, so the 7th Epiphi is assigned to July 31 (pridie Kal. Aug.) and the 8th Epiphi is assigned to August 1 (Kal. Aug.), instead of July 1 and 2. That is, in the village of Menoufis; it was built by Theophilus. The tomb of the martyrs, but not the church, since there was a church in the village of Menoufis, namely, St. Evangelists. Theoktista, Theodota and Eudoxia with their mother Athanasia, during the reign of Diocletian. The main church in Alexandria. It is difficult to decide which “place” Kirill means here; according to the inscription of the speech, this “place” was Canova (“here resting”..., and we are talking about Canova). In the course of the speech in this teaching, the location of the relics of Cyrus and John was somewhere else, as if unknown to the inhabitants of Kanova. We rely more on the content, rather than the inscription.... i.e. in the village of Menoufis. (note 1st on previous page) As far as we know (mainly from this same passage), there were 3 types of eunuchs: F λαδίας; - those whose reproductive members were crushed or even damaged from an early age; σπαδων, - castrated or laid out since childhood and άπόχοπος; (with the reproductive members cut off by a sharp iron instrument) or castrato, i.e. a eunuch or eunuch in the proper sense. The first two types of skopstvo, as involuntary skoptchestvo, could not be strictly condemned. Therefore, one must think that St. Cyril meant eunuchs of the last kind, or castrati, who voluntarily, at their own request, castrated themselves. An indication of the local or perhaps now extinct custom of being present with lighted candles on the feast of the Presentation of the Lord. The story of the “circumcision” of the Lord, and then the Meeting of Him by Simeon, set forth immediately after this, shows that in the time of Cyril, both of these holidays merged into one holiday, which took place shortly after Christmas, precisely on the 8th day after it, i.e., January 1, and not February 2. Indeed, at the beginning of the conversation, Kirill says: “we recently saw (προβραχεως) an adolescent laid in a manger”..., traces. and therefore it turns out that the sermon was delivered on January 1st, and not on February 2nd, as one might judge from the inscription. As the best, in our opinion, exegetical conversation, we present it in its entirety in a translation feasible for us. Compare the same opinion about grace and justification h. r. 2, ζ, r. 444 – 445. Cyril arrived in Ephesus a few days before Pentecost 431, which fell precisely on June 7, i.e., June 4–6. The Council of Ephesus took place on June 22. – Evagr. Church Histor. ki. 1st, chapters 3 and 4th. βλεπων τοί χόμητας ίπερασπιζονταςα αί, οί ... Obviously, of course, Candidian and Irenaeus, who accompanied Nestorius to the Council and patronized him - especially Irenaeus. Le Quien Oriens Christianus, b. 409: a Cirillo Ioannes commnniane dijunetus mansit ad annum usque 433, quo pax inter ipsos sancita fuit die 23 Aprilis. But not suffering on the cross. Church Song: “In the grave I am carnal, but in hell with my soul, like God.” Compare: epist. 39, r'. 176 – 177 (confession of faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God) Compare: epist. 39, r. 180. We have already borrowed from Cyril’s letter to John of Antioch (No. 39) that similar reproaches were made to Cyril by the Easterners regarding the conciliatory negotiations of John of Antioch. with the Alexandrian saint. “The speech, or rather the introduction to the story of the death of the 3 youths and the wise Daniel” (page 1117), as shown in note 2, belongs to another Cyril, who lived much later than our Cyril, an archbishop of the 5th century. So in this conversation the same characteristics of Nestorius are found (although without mentioning his name) as are found in sermons 11 and 4. So in the conversation in question it is said (page 1017): - “it was not some low, not despicable charlatans of the crowd, emerging from the street urchins, who announced this from the crossroads" ...; in the 4th (p. 993): “and having planned to rule over all the churches, you did not remember the one who raised you from the dung heap to the heavenly heights"; in the 11th (p. 1036): “For to what height have you ascended, who were formerly dirt, from a low race." - It speaks of a new false wisdom that has reached Alexandria; “but where are they now, these solitary wolves who deny God?” asks Kirill, “wolves who, because of the flesh, deny the consubstantiality of Christ with the Almighty. God? ".. (r. 1028 - 29) etc. This means that the heresy of Nestorius no longer found adherents; the ranks of its supporters thinned out...