Two Epistles to Sukkens, Bishop of Diocaesarea

“Two Epistles to Succens, Bishop of Diocaesarea” (433-435) are of particular value for clarifying certain aspects of the Christological teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria. They are part of a group of letters associated with the conclusion in 433 of an ecclesiastical “union” between Alexandria and Antioch, which put an end to the schism that took place after the Third Ecumenical Council, renewing communion between the Churches of Egypt and the East. The 1st letter (12 chapters) was written shortly after the achievement of peace, apparently in the same 433, and is one of the best letters to St. Kirill. In it, the saint combines the doctrine of the union of two natures in Christ with a soteriological understanding of redemption. The letter answers the question whether it is possible to speak of two natures in Christ. First St. Cyril briefly outlines the false teachings of Diodorus of Tarsus and Nestorius, and then moves on to a positive exposition of the dogma of the Incarnation. Rejecting the Monophysite idea that after the Resurrection the flesh of Christ passed into the divine nature, the saint emphasizes the immutability of the two natures in Christ. He emphasizes that the Word “became man” and did not simply “take on man.” In Him the fullness of both natures is preserved - Divine and human. St. Cyril emphasizes hypostatic unity - “human flesh has become its own for the Word.” The saint writes about overcoming the consequences of sin: in Christ the “law of sin” is put to death (Rom. 8:2), the effect of corruption in human nature ceases, and the “disease of voluptuousness” (passion) is destroyed. The letter also touches on the soteriological aspect: Christ becomes “the firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18), the path to incorruption is opened for all human nature, and victory over hell and death is achieved. The 2nd letter (5 chapters) was written no later than 435. In it, St. Cyril refutes 4 Nestorian theses against the expression: “One nature of the Word incarnate.” The saint criticizes those who separate the human nature of Christ from the Divine, as if only the man Jesus suffered, and not the incarnate Word. This, in his opinion, undermines the doctrine of the Incarnation and leads to the idea that Christians worship just a person. St. Cyril emphasizes that the body crucified on the cross belonged to the Word Himself, and was not alien to Him. As an argument, the saint cites the analogy of the human soul and body. Just as in man the soul and body are two natures, but one person, so in Christ there are two natures, but one Person (hypostasis). The humanity of Christ does not exist in itself (has no separate hypostasis), but belongs to the Word. Fragments from the Epistles of Bishop. Sukkensu was often quoted and discussed in the polemical writings of opponents and supporters of the Chalcedonian oros. Letters to St. Cyril of Alexandria occupy a special place among his surviving works 1 . They date back to the time of the Nestorian controversy and are the most important source on the history of the Third Ecumenical (Ephesus) Council and related events. It is difficult to overestimate the dogmatic significance of this corpus: almost everywhere the saint touches on the doctrinal side of the dispute, and a number of his messages are genuine Christological treatises. Among the most significant of them are two epistles to Sukkens, Bishop of Diocaesarea 2, the Russian translation of which is offered to the reader. The “Epistle to Succens” is part of a group of letters related to the conclusion of the church “union” between Alexandria and Antioch in 433, which put an end to the schism that took place after the Third Ecumenical (Ephesian) Council, renewing communion between the Churches of Egypt and the East. The first of the letters to Sukkens was written shortly after the achievement of peace, apparently in the same year 433, and is one of the best letters of the saint, representing a laconic and expressive outline of his Christology. The second letter was composed some time later, but no later than 435. It is entirely devoted to the defense of the expression “one nature of God the Word incarnate”: the saint here gives an analysis of four objections directed against this Christological formula. In the era of Christological disputes, the “Epistle to Sukkens” was among the most widely discussed works of the Alexandrian saint, since their ambiguous interpretation largely determined the content of the polemics between the Orthodox and the Monophysites. The latter tried to rely in their struggle against the Council of Chalcedon on some of the expressions used here, and above all “the one nature of God the Word incarnate.” Nevertheless, for the fathers of later times, these letters were the most important evidence not only of the pure Orthodoxy of the “divine Cyril”, but also of the impeccable accuracy of his theological language 3 . Despite the great importance of the “Epistle to Succens” for understanding the theological views of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the noticeable role they played in the era of Christological disputes, in Russian translation, as far as we know, they have not yet been published. Our translation is based on the edition of E. Schwartz 4. Quotations from the Holy Scriptures are given according to the synodal text and are in italics. The translation was verified by Hier. Tikhon (Zimin), to whom we express our sincere gratitude. Special thanks to Prof. A.I. Sidorov, who several years ago drew our attention to these works of the Alexandrian saint, which resulted in their preliminary translation. Memorial note from the most God-loving and holy Archbishop Kirill to His Beatitude Sukkens, Bishop of Diocaesarea, Isaurian Diocese (1) I read the memorial note sent by your piety, and was very glad that although you yourself are able to help both us and others, yet out of great curiosity you deign to ask us to write about what we contain in our thoughts and what we accept as truth. So, we talk about the Economy of our Savior in the same way as the holy fathers who preceded us, because by reading their works, we tune our own minds in such a way as to follow them and not introduce any innovation into right dogmas. (2) But since your perfection asks whether in relation to Christ we should say “two natures” or not, then this, I thought, requires a special discussion. A certain Diodorus, who, they say, was at one time a Doukhobor, was in communion with the Orthodox Church. Putting aside what he considered the impurity of the Macedonian heresy, he fell into another illness. Namely, he reasoned and wrote that another Son, in Himself, is the One who is from the seed of David 5, born of the Holy Virgin, and another Son, again separately, is the Word from God the Father. As if covering a wolf with sheep's clothing, 6 although he speaks feignedly about Christ alone, elevating this name only to the only begotten Son, the Word, born of God the Father, however, “according to the order of grace,” 7 as he himself says, he also refers it to the One who is from the seed of David. He also calls him the Son, as having become one (ἐνωθέντα), he says, with the true Son, but one not in the way we believe, but only in dignity, power and equality of honor. (3) Nestorius became his disciple, who, darkened by his books, although in words he confesses one Christ, Son and Lord, however, he himself divides in two the One and Undivided, arguing that man has joined God the Word (συνῆφθαι) through the same name, equality of honor and dignity. And therefore he distinguishes the sayings about Christ found in the Gospel and Apostolic sermons, and asserts that some of them should be attributed to man - those, of course, that are characteristic of man, while others are befitting of God the Word in itself - those, of course, that are befitting the Divine. And since he distinguishes in many ways and posits separately the One who was born of the Holy Virgin as a man in fact, and in the same way separately and separately - the Son, the Word from God the Father, he says that the Holy Virgin is not the Mother of God, but “the mother of man.” (4) We are not inclined to understand it this way, but from the Divine Scripture and from the holy fathers we are taught to confess one Son, Christ and Lord, that is, the Word from God the Father, begotten of Him before all ages, fit for God and ineffable, and in the last times of this age begotten in the flesh from the Holy Virgin. And since She gave birth to God, incarnate and made man, that is why we call Her the Mother of God. So, there is one Son, one Lord Jesus Christ 8 - both before the Incarnation and after the Incarnation. For the Word was not another Son from God the Father, but another [born] from the Holy Virgin, but we believe that this eternal [Word] Himself was born of a woman according to the flesh. Moreover, it was not His Divinity that received the basis for being or was called to the beginning of existence through the Holy Virgin, but, as I said, it is precisely about the Word that existed before the ages that it is affirmed that It was born of Her according to the flesh. After all, the flesh was his own - just as for each of us, undoubtedly, his body is his own. (5) But since some attribute to us the opinions of Apollinaris and say: “If you call the incarnate and incarnate Word from God the Father one Son, in the sense of an exact and contracted unity, then, perhaps, you imagined and accepted the idea that there was an fusion, or fusion, or mixing of the Word with the body, or the transformation of the body into the Divine nature,” then, reflecting from ourselves this slander, we affirm, and completely consciously that the Word from God the Father incomprehensibly and ineffably united with Himself a body animated by a rational soul, and came from a woman as a man, not by virtue of the transformation of nature, but because of the good will of the economy. For He deigned to become man, without giving up being God by nature, and although He descended into our characteristic state and bore the form of a servant, 9 even so He retained the excellencies of the Godhead and natural dominion. (6) So, uniting the Word from God the Father with the holy flesh, which has a rational soul, ineffable and above understanding, unfused, unchangeable, immutable, we thereby confess that there is one Christ, Son and Lord, the same God and man - not one and the other, but one and the same, who both exists and is thought of as both. Therefore, sometimes He, as a man, speaks according to the economy that is characteristic of man, and sometimes, as God, He pronounces speeches with the authority befitting the Divine. Let's add the following to this. Carefully examining the way of building the economy according to the flesh and carefully peering into this sacrament, we see that the Word from God the Father both became incarnate and became man, moreover, He did not sculpt this church, this body, from His Divine nature, but received it from the Virgin. For how could He become a man if He did not bear a human body? Therefore, pondering, as I said, the image of the incarnation, we see that two natures came together (συνῆλθον) with each other in an indissoluble unity, unfused and immutable, since the flesh is flesh, and not the Divine, even when it became the flesh of God, just as the Word is God, and not flesh, although according to the economy He made the flesh His own own So, if we understand this way, then we will not at all disrupt the confluence (συνδρομήν) into unity, although we say that it came from two natures. However, after unity, we do not separate natures one from another and do not divide the One and Undivided Sons into two, but we affirm that there is one Son and, as the fathers said, one nature of the Word incarnate. (7) Thus, although we affirm - so far as it concerns the mental representation and only contemplation with the eyes of the soul of how the Only Begotten became man - that there are two natures 10 that were united, but one Christ, the Son and the Lord, the Word of God made man and incarnate. And if you like, let us take as an example our own composition, which makes us human. Namely, we are made up of soul and body and we see two natures, one is the soul, the other is the body, but from both [natures], due to their union, there is one person. And the fact that men are composed of two natures does not at all make one man two, but one man by reason of his composition, as I said, of soul and body. After all, if we begin to deny that the one and only Christ is from two and, moreover, different natures, being inseparable after unity, then opponents of right dogmas will ask us: “Since everything in Him is one nature, how then did He become man and what flesh did He make His own?” (8) And since I found in your memorial note a certain shade of the idea that after the resurrection the holy body of the Savior of us all, Christ, passed into the Divine nature, so that everything in Him is now only Divinity, then I decided that I should talk about this too. Blessed Paul, explaining the reasons for the incarnation of the Only Begotten Son of God, writes: Because the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless, God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh [as a sacrifice] for sin and condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. And again: And since children participate in flesh and blood, He also received them, in order by death to deprive the power of him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and to deliver those who from the fear of death were subject to slavery throughout their lives. For He does not receive angels, but He receives the seed of Abraham. Therefore, He had to become like the brothers in everything 12. (9) Now, we affirm that because of the crime of Adam, human nature was corrupted and our minds suffered violence from the desires of the flesh or natural movements. Therefore, for the salvation of us living on earth, it became necessary for the Word of God to become human - so that He would assimilate human flesh, subject to corruption and sick with voluptuousness, and since He is Life and life-giving, thereby stopping corruption in it and curbing innate movements, those, of course, that attract to voluptuousness. After all, this is exactly how sin was killed in her. We also remember that Blessed Paul called the movements innate in us the law of sin 13 . So, once human flesh became the Word’s own, corruption ceased to act in it, and since He who assimilated it and showed it to be His own, as God does not know sin, then, as I said, the disease of voluptuousness ceased in it. And the Only Begotten Word of God did not do this for Himself - for It always is what It is - but, of course, for us. After all, if we were subjected to those disasters that followed the crime in Adam, what is in Christ 14 will certainly come upon us, that is, the incorruptibility and mortification of sin. So, He became a man, and did not take on a man, as Nestorius believes 15. And in order for people to believe that He became a man, although He remained what He was, namely God by nature, it is said about Him that He was hungry and tired from walking, and suffered sleep, and fear, and sorrow, and other human and impeccable passions. And on the other hand, in order to fully convince those who see Him that, being a man, He is also the true God, He performed Divine signs, commanding the sea, raising the dead and arranging other wonderful things. He also endured the cross so that, having endured death in the flesh—the flesh, and not the nature of the Divine—he became the firstborn from the dead, 16 to pave the way for human nature to incorruption and, having plundered hell, to free the souls imprisoned there. (10) But after the resurrection, the same body that suffered suffering no longer had human infirmities in it. Now we do not say that it is subject to hunger, exhaustion, or any other of these things, but we affirm that it has finally become incorruptible, and not only incorruptible, but also life-giving, since it is the body of Life, that is, the Only Begotten. And it even shone with the glory befitting only the Divine, and we consider it the body of God. Therefore, even if someone calls it Divine, just as the human body is called human, he will not sin against the proper meaning. I think that for this reason the wise Paul said: even if we knew Christ in the flesh, now we no longer know 17. Because, being God's own body, as I said, it has surpassed everything human. However, it is unacceptable for a body from the earth to undergo a change (μεταβολήν) into the Divine nature; agree that this is impossible, otherwise we will begin to accuse the Divine of being born or of having taken into Itself something which is not by Its nature. For it is equally absurd to assert that the body has changed into the nature of the Godhead, and that the Word has changed into the nature of flesh. But just as the latter is impossible, because the Word is not subject to transformation or change, so the first is also impossible, for it is not possible for anything from creation to pass into the Divine essence or nature, and the flesh is creation. Therefore, although we affirm that the body of Christ is Divine, since it is the body of God, and that it is illuminated with ineffable glory, incorruptible, holy, life-giving, but that it has changed into the Divine nature, none of the holy fathers thought or said, and we do not intend to do this. (11) Let it be known to your holiness that our father Athanasius, of blessed memory, who was once the bishop of Alexandria, due to disputes that arose in his time, wrote a letter to Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, 18 filled with pure Orthodoxy. And when, with the help of this letter, Nestorius was also exposed and the supporters of the right faith, by reading it, confused those who were inclined to think the same way as him, then the latter, rejecting the evidence contained here, invented something evil and worthy of the wickedness of the heretics. Namely, they, having spoiled this letter and subtracted one and added another, published it so that it would seem that this illustrious father was like-minded to Nestorius and his followers. Therefore, there was a need - in case someone presented you with a damaged letter there - to take a copy from our list and send it to your piety. Well, the most reverent and pious Paul, Bishop of Emesa, when he came to Alexandria, started talking about this. And then it was discovered that although he had a copy of this letter, it was damaged and altered by heretics, so he wanted a copy from our list to be sent to Antioch, and we sent it there 19. (12) Following in all respects the Orthodoxy of the holy fathers, we compiled a book against Nestorius, as well as another against those who slandered the meaning of the chapters, and sent all this to your piety 20 so that if other brothers of the same faith and of one accord with us turn out to be carried away by the idle talk of some people, believing that we have changed our thoughts after what was said against Nestorius, then they will be admonished from what they have read and They will know that we have previously duly and rightly reproached him as having gone astray, and now we are no less oppressing him, fighting everywhere against his blasphemies. May your perfection, which is capable of understanding even more, help us with writings and prayers. Another memorandum written in response to questions to us about the same thing, also to Sukkens (1) The truth seems obvious to those who love it, but it hides, I think, and strives to remain hidden from evil thoughts, because they discover that they themselves are not worthy to see it with clear eyes. And while adherents of impeccable faith seek the Lord, as it is written, in simplicity of heart, 21 those who walk in crooked paths 22 and have a corrupt heart, as it is said in the psalms, 23 themselves collect cunning reasons for perverse concepts in order to seduce from the right paths of the Lord 24 and bring the souls of the simple to the need to think inappropriately. And I say this after reading the memorial notes of your piety and finding in them some unsafe assumptions of those who fell in love, I don’t know how, with the corruption of false knowledge 25 . They were next. (2) “If, it is asked, Immanuel was united from two natures, and after the union one nature of the Word incarnate is conceived, then it must certainly be said that the Word must have suffered in His own nature.” The blessed fathers, who defined for us the sacred Symbol of the right faith, said that the Word from God the Father, Who was born from His essence, the Only Begotten Son, through Whom everything was [created], He Himself became incarnate and became man. And we, of course, do not say that these saints remained ignorant of the fact that the body, united with the Word, was animated by a rational soul, so that if anyone says that the Word was incarnate, he will also agree that the flesh united with Him is not devoid of a rational soul. For I believe, or rather, we can safely say that this is exactly what the wise Evangelist John meant when he said that the Word became flesh, 26 and not at all that It was united with soulless flesh - let it not be! - or as if It had undergone transformation or change. For He remains what He was, that is, God by nature. And even having assumed human existence, that is, having been born in the flesh from a woman like us, He still remains one Son, only no longer incorporeal, as in ancient times, that is, before the time of His incarnation, but as if clothed in our nature. However, although the body united with Him by the Word begotten of the Father is not of one essence, which also has a rational soul, and our mind imagines the natural difference (τὸ ἑτεροφυές) of those united, we still confess one Son, Christ and Lord, since the Word became flesh. And when we talk about flesh, we mean man. So where will the need for Him to suffer in His own nature come from, if we recognize that after the union there is one nature of the Son incarnate? Now, if in our sayings about the economy there was no something that is subject to suffering by nature, then they could rightly assert that since there is no something that suffers by nature, it is absolutely necessary for suffering to occur in the nature of the Word. But if, by calling this nature incarnate, the entire doctrine of the economy according to the flesh is introduced - for the Word became incarnate only by taking Him from the seed of Abraham 27 and becoming like His brothers in everything 28 and taking on the form of a servant 29 - then in vain are those who claim that the necessity of suffering Him in His own nature will necessarily follow. flesh, about which it is natural to think that suffering occurred in it, although the Word Himself is impassive. However, by this we do not exclude Him from what was said about suffering, because just as much as the body became His own, everything corporeal, except for one sin, can no less be called His own because of its assimilation through the economy. (3) “If,” it is asked, “there is one incarnate nature of the Word, then it is absolutely necessary for a mixture or fusion to occur, so that human nature, as it were, diminishes and imperceptibly disappears in Him.” Again, those who bend the straight line 30 have not noticed that truly there is one nature of the Word incarnate. For one is the Son by nature and truly the Word, ineffably begotten of God the Father. And if He then, through the perception of flesh - not soulless, but intelligently animated - as a man came from a woman, then through this He was not divided into two persons or into two sons, but remains one. Only now He is no longer incorporeal and outside the body, but has it as His own, in accordance with the indissoluble unity. But in saying this, we in no way express either confusion, merging, or anything else similar to this - and why should this necessarily follow from what has been said? After all, even when we say that the Only Begotten Son of God, incarnate and made man, is one, through this He was not mixed, as it seems to them, and, of course, the nature of the Word did not pass into the nature of the flesh, just as the nature of the flesh did not pass into His nature. But even though the characteristics of each nature are preserved and discerned in Him, according to the reasoning we have just presented, having become unspeakably and inexpressibly one, He nevertheless showed us one nature of the Son, only, as I said, incarnate. After all, not only about beings that are simple in nature can one literally say “one,” but also about those that are brought together through the composition of [natures], of which an example is man, consisting of soul and body. Namely, although they are heterogeneous and not consubstantial with each other, nevertheless they form human nature, which has become truly one, even if in discussions about its composition there is a distinction in the nature of those gathered into unity. Consequently, those who claim that if there is one nature of the Word incarnate, then confusion or merging will certainly follow, so that human nature will, as it were, diminish and imperceptibly disappear. For it is not diminished, as they say, and does not disappear, since in order to best reveal that He became man, it is enough to say that He became incarnate. Now, if we were silent about this, their slander would have some basis, but when we recognize the need to add that He became incarnate, where is the image of the diminishment or disappearance of His humanity? (4) “If,” one asks, “the same is considered as perfect God and as perfect man, and He is consubstantial with the Father in Divinity, and consubstantial with us in humanity, then where is the perfection of His humanity, if the nature of man no longer exists? And where are His consubstantial beings to us, if our essence, that is, nature, is no longer represented (ἕ στηκεν)?” To clarify these issues, the solution or answer given in the previous chapter is also sufficient. Namely, if we, having spoken about the one nature of the Word, remained silent and did not add that it is “incarnate,” but rather allowed for an economy beyond this, then, probably, the words of those feigningly asking: “Where is the perfection of His humanity?” or: “How does an essence corresponding to us exist in Him?” But since both the perfection in humanity and the indication of the essence corresponding to us are introduced through this word “incarnate,” then let them stop leaning on the bruised reed 31 . The one who rejects the economy and denies the Incarnation could rightly be accused of robbing the Son of perfect humanity. But if, as I have said, there is a clear and unequivocal confession in the words “He became incarnate” that He became man, nothing further prevents the recognition that the same Christ, being the one and only Son, is both God and man, perfect both in Divinity and humanity. At the same time, your perfection speaks very correctly and sensibly about saving suffering, saying that the Only Begotten Son of God Himself, insofar as He is thought of as God and is God, did not suffer in His own nature, which is superior to the physical, but that He suffered through the earthly nature. After all, it was necessary for the one and true Son to preserve both: both not to suffer according to Divinity, and to accept suffering according to humanity, for His flesh suffered. But these people believe that by doing this we introduce the so-called “suffering of the Divine” (θεοπάθειαν). Moreover, they do not think deeply about the economy, and, worst of all, unreasonably indulging in destructive reverence, they strive to transfer suffering to a person in isolation, so that the Word of God is not confessed as the Savior as having given His own blood for us, but so that they say that this was done by the man Jesus, considered separately and independently. However, such a thought shakes the entire doctrine of the economy according to the flesh and openly gives our Divine sacrament the meaning of man-worship. They do not even take into account that blessed Paul spoke of Him who is from the Jews according to the flesh, 32 that is, from the seed of Abraham, Jesse and David, that He is the Christ and Lord of glory 33 and God blessed forever and who is over all, 34 showing that the body nailed on the tree is proper to the Word, and thereby assigning the cross to Him. (5) But I know that besides this there is another question: “Whoever says that the Lord suffered only in (γυμνῇ) flesh makes His suffering unreasonable and involuntary, and if we say that He suffered with a rational soul in order to make His suffering voluntary, then nothing prevents us from asserting that He suffered by human nature. But since this is also true, why don’t we admit that after unification there exist (ὑφεστάναι) two natures inseparably? So, if someone says: Therefore, just as Christ suffered for us in the flesh, 35 then he does not say anything else than: Christ suffered for us in our nature.” This position is again no less directed against those who teach the one nature of the Son incarnate. And wanting to declare this unfounded, they stubbornly strive to discover everywhere two existing (ὑφεστώσας) natures. However, they remained ignorant that objects that are customary to be separated not only in speculation, may well retreat from each other into such a difference that will be a complete separation and difference in the proper sense. And let a person like us again be an example for us. Namely, although we see in him two natures, one - the soul, the other - the body, however, separating them by simple thoughts and accepting their difference only in subtle speculations or mental representations, we do not posit these natures separately and certainly do not allow the possibility of their complete separation, but we understand that they belong to one 36, so that these two [natures] are no longer two, but through both 37 one living being is formed. Therefore, even if they say that Immanuel has the nature of humanity and [the nature of] Divinity, yet this humanity became his own for the Word, and we understand that with him the Son is one. However, since the inspired Scripture says that He suffered in the flesh, 38 then it is better for us to say so, rather than to say that He suffered “by human nature,” although there is no doubt that if some had not so stubbornly insisted on this, [the latter expression] would not have harmed the doctrine of the sacrament in the least. After all, what else could the nature of humanity be if not flesh, intelligently animated? So we say that the Lord suffered in the flesh. Therefore, when they assert with excessive zeal that He suffered “by human nature,” as if completely separating him from the Word and placing him outside Him, separately, their goal is to see two [beings], and not just one Word incarnate and made man from God the Father. And the added “inseparable”, although with us it seems to be an indication of the true view, they do not understand it that way. After all, this indivisibility, in accordance with the idle talk of Nestorius, is accepted by them in a different way, since they say that the person into whom God’s Word has infused is indivisible with Him in terms of equality of honor, identity of will and power, so they do not just pronounce these expressions, but with a certain slyness and malicious intent. In patrolology J.-P. Minya presents 88 letters (PG 77, 9–390). The authenticity of some of them is doubtful, and 17 belong to the addressees of St. Kirill. The Greek text of the five letters was first published by E. Schwartz in his collection of the acts of the Third Ecumenical Council (Quasten J. Patrology. Vol. 3. The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature. Westminster, Maryland, 3 1986. P. 132–133). Ep. 45–46. ACO I, 1, 6. pp. 151–162. CPG 5345–5346. A detailed presentation of the circumstances of the writing of the “Letters to Sukkens” and an analysis of their theological content in the refraction of later patristic writing is given by us in the article published below “Defense of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s expression “one nature of God the Word incarnate” from the point of view of Orthodox polemicists of the V-VIII centuries.” ASO I, 1, 6. R. 151–162. Of the translations into new languages, we had at our disposal English, placed in the appendix to the monograph by J. A. St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Christological controversy. Brill; Leiden, 1994. P.352–363. In the writings of the Nestorian dispute, St. Cyril allows this expression only in relation to ordinary people, who precisely “by the order of grace” (ἐν χάριτος τάξει) are made worthy of adoption by God and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, while God the Word is Son by nature and acts by the Holy Spirit as His own (Comm, in Luc. 2. PG 72, 492В:9–14. Contra Nest. Lib. 4. ACO I, 1, 6. P. 77:42–78:4. Quod unus sit Christus 744ä9–12 / Éd. Paris, 1964. SC 97. P. 400. 5228; Ep. 55. ACO I, 1, 4. P. 5355. DVS No. 188 [Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 1. I, II, III St. Petersburg, 1996. pp. 572–573. However, in his earlier “Dialogues on the Holy Trinity” he uses this expression in relation to Christ, however, here too a fundamental difference from the Nestorian understanding of the incarnation is visible. Christ receives “the name that is above every name” (Phil. 2:9) “as if according to the order of grace” (ὡ ς ἐν χάριτος τάξει) as a result of taking upon Himself the exhaustion of the economy for our sake. But He eternally and unchangeably remains “in the form of God” (Phil. 2:6) (De Trin. Dial. 3, 485c:19–26; 5, 547b:11-c/ Éd. par S. M. Durand. Paris, 1977. SC 237. P. 82–84, 266–268. CPG 5216). Among the Nestorians, the incarnation itself is understood only as a special degree of grace for a person who remains different in relation to the true Son. δύο τὰς φύσεις ε ἶ ναι. St. Anastasius Sinaite reports that in almost all contemporary Alexandrian manuscripts, except for the manuscripts of the patriarchal library, instead of these words, especially clearly indicating the “diphysitism” of the saint, there was either “two natures united” (δύο τὰς φύσεις ἡνῶσθαι), or “two are thought of nature" (δύο τὰς φύσεις ἐννοεῖσθαι). This was a consequence of the deliberate damage to a number of patristic writings, organized on a large scale after the death of St. Eulogius of Alexandria († 607/608) by a certain high-ranking Severian (Annst. Sin. Viae dux 10, 2, 7:176–187 / Ed. K. H. Uthemann. Turnhout: Brepols, 1981. CCSG 8. CPG 7745). As St. notes. Eulogius of Alexandria, in his work “Treasury (of sayings) about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity” of St. Cyril himself says that God the Word, having become high priest for our sake, like a certain podir, took a man, or a church from Mary (Cyr. Alex. Thes. 21. PG 75, 361D: 2–5. CPG 5215). Why does he say here that God the Word “did not accept man”? The explanation is given right there: he denies that God the Word perceived man in the sense “as Nestorius believes,” that is, that He perceived some separately “existing” man, while according to St. To Cyril, God the Word in Himself “realized” this man (gave him a hypostasis) and truly became a man, remaining unchanged in Divinity. For St. Eulogia is a vivid example of the fact that St. Cyril “does not entrust his mind to sayings, but weighs sayings with his mind (τ ῇ διανοί ᾳ),” that is, that the verbal side of Christology for him has a subordinate, and not a self-sufficient meaning (Eui. Alex, apud Phot. Bibl. 230, 272b: 25–40 / Éd. par R. Henry. Paris, 1959–1977. TLG 4040/1. Athan. Alex. Er. ad Epict. (ed. G. Ludwig. Jena, 1911. TLG 2035/110. CPG 2095). Rus. trans.: Works of St. Athanasius the Great. Part 3. TSL, 1903 (p. 1994). pp. 290–302. This message, directed against a number of Christological heresies, gained great fame during the Nestorian controversy. After the Council of Ephesus, in peace negotiations between Alexandria and Antioch, St. also pointed to it as a “rule of faith.” Cyril and his Antiochian opponents. About this same St. Cyril reports in two more of his epistles, contemporary with the first epistle to Suckens: to John, Bishop of Antioch, about peace, etc. Akakios, Bishop of Melitino (Er. 39, 11. ACO I, 1, 4. R. 20:9–13. CPG 5339. DVS No. 180 (Acts 1996, p. 543); Er. 40, 21. ACO I, 1, 4. R. 30:9–19. CPG 5340. DVS No. 181 (Acts 1996, p. 551)). We are talking about the work of St. dating back to 430. Cyril “Against the Blasphemy of Nestorius” in 5 books and about two apologies of his “12 anathematisms”, or “chapters”, compiled in 431, with a refutation of the objections put forward on behalf of the “eastern” bishops by Andrei Samosatsky and personally Bl. Theodoret of Cyrus (Libri V contra Nest. ACO I, 1, 6. P. 13–106. CPG 5217; Apol. XII capit, contra Orient. ACO I, 1, 7. P. 33–65. CPG 5221. DVS No. 147 (Acts 1996. P. 415–445); Apol. XII anath. contra Theod. ACO I, 1, 6. P. 110–146. CPG 5222. DVS No. 149 (Acts 1996. P. 445–473)). It may be noted that by 433 St. Kirill is already forming a kind of “canon” of anti-Nestorian works. So, to the Constantinople presbyter Eulogius, along with a memorial note, he sends for transmission to a certain “most famous leader”, in addition to the indicated treatises, his short essay “On the Incarnation of God the Word”, acts of the Council of Ephesus, “Epistle to Epictetus” by St. Athanasius, as well as his two letters to Nestorius, letters to John of Antioch, etc. Akakiy Melitinsky (Er. 44. ACO I, 1, 4. R. 37:4–14. CPG 5344. DVS No. 182 (Acts 1996. P. 553)). 2 Kings 18, 21; Is. 36, 6. At St. Ephraim of Antioch here instead of “they belong to one” (ἑνὸς ε ἶ ναι) it is given “one belongs to one” (μίαν ἑνὸς ε ἶ ναι). This does not significantly change the meaning of this place, since the general context gives reason to see behind this “one” an indication of more than one nature, as the Monophysitist opponents of St. believe. Ephraim, but in one hypostasis (Ephr. Ant. apud Phot. Bibl. 229, 249b:15–20. CPG 6908). St. Ephraim of Antioch draws attention to the fact that St. Cyril here did not use the expression “from both” (ἐξ ἀμφοῖν), but rather “through both” (δ ί ἀμφοῖν). This in itself already indicates the preservation of each nature in the “living being” formed by their combination (Ephr. Ant. apud Phot. Bibl. 229, 249b: 39–43). You might be interested in: