Message to the Egyptian Monks

“Epistle to the Egyptian Monks” (beginning 429, 27 chapters) is one of the first anti-Nestorian works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. The epistle addresses the following issues: the anointing of Christ, the two births of the Son, His humiliation, the assimilation of the flesh, the redemptive meaning of His death, and the soteriological consequences of His resurrection. The saint cites as arguments the patristic testimonies, the Nicene Symbol and selected passages of Holy Scripture (mainly from the epistles of the Apostle Paul). The reason for writing the message was the controversy that arose among the monks of Egypt around the name “Mother of God”. St. Kirill gives them arguments in defense of the true faith. He teaches that Christ is God by nature, therefore, the Most Holy Virgin who gave birth to Him is the true Mother of God. As an example of the unity of Word and flesh in Christ, the “natural unity” of soul and body in man is given. The author of the letter bases his arguments on the works of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, the Nicene Symbol and selected Scriptures. The saint reinforces the thesis about the double birth of the Son (from God the Father in eternity and from the Virgin in time) with the example of a person whose flesh is formed in the womb of the mother, the spirit (soul) is sent by God, but the mother gives birth not to a part of a person (flesh), but to the whole person. At the same time, the soul and body achieve “natural unity” and seem to “mix” properties. By this example it is explained how the passionless and immortal Word suffers and dies in His flesh. St. Cyril criticizes the idea of ​​Christ as a “God-bearing man” or “an instrument of the Divine,” otherwise the redemption and renewal of human nature would be impossible. The “Epistle to the Egyptian Monks” was of great importance in the initial history of the Nestorian dispute; certain passages from it were discussed in the polemics between the Orthodox and the Monophysites. The first part of the works of St. Cyril of Alexandria, published in 1880 as part of the “Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation”, published at the Moscow Theological Academy, was the first release of TSO, carried out after an eight-year forced break (1872–1880), caused by a lack of funds. The last, 15th part, published in 1912, became one of the last issues of TSO before the revolutionary events cut short this publication 1 . For almost a quarter of a century, famous professors and teachers of the Academy worked on translations of the saint’s works. The books “On Worship in Spirit and Truth” and “Glafira”, containing a kind of typological commentary on the Pentateuch, as well as “Interpretation on the Prophet Isaiah” were translated by P. I. Kazansky and I. N. Korsunsky, and “Interpretation on the Twelve (Minor) Prophets” - mainly by P. I. Kazansky (with the participation of A. A. Zhdanov) 2. For P.I. Kazansky (1838–1913), studies on these translations proceeded in line with his previous Old Testament research 3 . The prominent role in this translation work of Prof. I. N. Korsunsky (1849–1899), a brilliant expert and long-term teacher of the ancient Greek language at the Moscow Academy, author of a major monograph on the Septuagint 4. One of the first places in his scientific activity was research on the historical hermeneutics of the Old Testament, 5 so that turning to the classical church interpretations of the Old Testament books was quite natural for him. Particularly noteworthy is the contribution to this common cause of Prof. M. D. Muretova (1851–1917). He translated commentaries on the books of Haggai and Malachi and was the final editor of all translations of commentaries on the prophetic books. And most importantly, he single-handedly translated “Commentary on the Gospel of John” 6 - the most extensive exegetical work and the most important theological work of the saint. At the same time, M.D. Muretov not only accompanied his translation with notes of a philological nature and compared the Gospel text in the “Interpretation” with the Byzantine and Slavic manuscripts available to him, but also compiled an excellent subject index 7 . All this was harmoniously combined with M.D. Muretov’s other main specialty, since he was, first of all, an outstanding biblical scholar of the New Testament. The result of these works was a fairly accurate Russian translation of the most important part of the heritage of St. Cyril of Alexandria, namely, those of his exegetical treatises that are entirely preserved in ancient Greek. Since the Kazan Theological Academy had by that time republished “The Acts of the Ecumenical Councils in Russian translation” more than once, and in two of the seven volumes of this series a large place is occupied by the polemical treatises, letters and homilies of the saint, in 1912 the Russian reader already had access to a very representative corpus of his works. But the legacy of this one of the most prolific writers of Christian antiquity still provided translators with a vast field of activity. These publications did not cover many exegetical works (abundant fragments from the catenas and the Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, preserved mainly in the ancient Syriac translation), numerous homilies and major dogmatic-polemical treatises. Filling up the significant gaps left by the Kazan publishers of the “Acts of the Ecumenical Councils,” priest Vasily Dmitriev, a graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy in 1916, worked on the anti-Nestorian writings of the saint. He published two relatively small treatises while still a student 8, and he dedicated his final candidate thesis to the translation into Russian of three extensive books “On the Right Faith,” which are among the most important works of the saint during the Nestorian dispute, a large extract from which was recently published in our journal 9. In recent years, thanks to the attention that the Moscow Theological Academy began to pay to the study of ancient languages, it resumed work on translations of the works of the Church Fathers, including St. Cyril of Alexandria. New Russian translations from his extensive heritage, regularly published in the Theological Bulletin starting from No. 5–6 for 2005–2006, thus show continuity with the works of the pre-revolutionary Academy. Thus, a feasible contribution is made to the preparation of a complete corpus of Russian translations of one of the brightest authors of patristic writing, in which interest among researchers of the XX-XXI centuries. is experiencing extraordinary growth. In this issue we bring to the attention of our readers “Message to the Monks of Egypt” 10, a polemical treatise that marked the beginning of the saint’s open struggle against the heresy of Nestorius. Nestorius became Patriarch of Constantinople in April 428 and very soon attracted the intense attention of the “universe,” ushering in an era of many years of dogmatic disputes. A significant feature of the “ecumenical temptation” that broke out was the question of the possibility of calling the Holy Virgin the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος). Believing that this naming could instill false ideas about the Face of the Savior, Nestorius proposed instead, as a more “strict”, naming “Christ Mother” (Χριστοτόκος), causing a stormy protest from a significant part of the capital’s clergy and laity. The sermons he delivered at the end of 428 and at the beginning of 429 in order to explain his views to the flock only strengthened the conviction of the wrongheadedness of the new primate of Constantinople. From the beginning of the same 429, the Archbishop of Alexandria publicly spoke out against his teachings. St. Cyril had previously already had reasons to refute the doctrine of “two Sons,” which was genetically close to Nestorianism 11 . His first works in the Nestorian polemic proper were the opening collection of his letters, “Epistle to the Monks of Egypt,” and the 17th “Easter Epistle,” dated to 429 12 . Chronological primacy is usually given to the “Easter Epistle,” which does not so clearly reflect the features of the current controversy. Despite some new signs of Christology, the saint nevertheless presents here the enemy’s teaching rather in the most general terms of “Antiochene” dualism. In particular, the name “Virgin” is never used here, although the Virgin is emphatically referred to with the completely synonymous name “Mother of God” (Μήτηρ Θεοῦ) 13. The “Message to the Monks” is entirely devoted to the defense of the controversial name, and most importantly, it testifies to the textual acquaintance of the saint with several sermons of Nestorius 14. Therefore, as a rule, it is dated to the first months of 429 15, while the composition of the 17th “Easter Epistle” is attributed to the turn of 428–429. 16 The reason for writing the “Message to the Monks,” according to the author, was concern over the disputes that arose among the monks around the name “Theotokos,” and the goal was to present them with arguments in defense of the true faith 17. He points out the same reason in a number of later epistles, specifying that the controversy was caused by the appearance of Nestorius’ sermons in Egypt, where they even found sympathetic attention among some 18 . It is not surprising that some monks from Constantinople ended up in the Egyptian desert and brought with them the sermons of their archbishop 19, especially considering the well-known mobility of many representatives of this class. Such an “invasion” of his canonical territory prompted the saint to enter into open struggle 20 . At the same time, it is possible that the saint, well aware of the events in the capital, initially assumed that his message would be read there too. In any case, very soon “certain persons” transferred lists from it 21 there, probably with the knowledge of the author. The name of Nestorius is not mentioned here, as in the “Easter Message,” and nothing is said about the turmoil of Constantinople, and not only because the matter concerned the primate of the Local Church elected by the emperor himself, regarding whom no conciliar judgment had yet been expressed. These messages preceded the mutual correspondence of St. Cyril and Nestorius, when the Alexandrian archbishop tried in personal communication to enlighten his brother and co-servant 22 and the saint had not yet deliberately identified the new false teaching with the personality of the Constantinople archbishop, leaving him the opportunity to renounce it relatively painlessly 23. But, despite his brotherly love for Nestorius, 24 even before personal relations with him he did not consider himself to have the right to remain silent regarding the spreading wickedness, 25 especially since the “universal temptation” had already reached the monasteries entrusted to his care. The main theme of the “Message to the Monks of Egypt” is the defense of the name “Theotokos,” and the initial thesis is simple to the point of obviousness: if Christ is God by nature, then the Virgin who gave birth to Him is the true Mother of God. This is a kind of “leitmotif” of the message 26, around which the rest of the argument is built. To confirm the legality of using the name “Mother of God”, passages from the works of St. Athanasius of Alexandria 27. Turning to the Nicene symbol, the saint emphasizes that it is said here about one Lord Jesus Christ - the true God, born of the Father and consubstantial with Him 28 . These are the “patristic arguments” of the saint. The arguments that follow “from Scripture” are grouped around specific issues. Regarding the name “Christ” (Anointed One), the saint, first of all, notes that this is not Emmanuel’s own name, since all those anointed by the Holy Spirit can be called “Christs,” that is, the name “Christ Mother” can indicate the mother of every “Christ” and is not enough when applied to the Virgin 29 . But below, from the meaning of the name “Christ,” His unity is already substantiated, since the assumption that this anointing refers either separately to His Divinity, or separately to His humanity, leads to absurd conclusions 30 . Even lower, the important point is revealed that Christ is not the disembodied Word, but the Word who became man 31 . The saint reinforces the thesis about the double birth of the Son (from God the Father in eternity and from the Virgin in time) with the example of a person whose flesh is formed in the womb of the mother, the spirit (soul) is sent by God, but the mother gives birth not to a part of a person (flesh), but to the whole person. At the same time, the soul and body achieve “natural unity” and seem to “mix” properties 32. The “anthropological paradigm” is an integral part of all the anti-Nestorian treatises of the saint, which he had previously used in criticism of Christological dualism, 33 but it is noteworthy how widely it is developed here. Below, by means of the same example, it is explained how the impassive and immortal Word suffers and dies in His flesh 34 . Turning to the humiliation of Christ, the saint interprets the corresponding passage from the Apostle Paul (Phil. 2:6-8) and notes that the same Christ is considered by the Apostle to be equal to God and to have humbled Himself through the perception of the image of a servant. Therefore, the humiliation of Christ does not mean the indwelling of the Word into man 35, but His assimilation of the flesh, and therefore there is one Lord Jesus Christ “from two things,” God and together man 36. What follows is a detailed critique of the idea of ​​Christ as a “God-bearing man” or an “instrument of the Divine.” In his interpretation of another passage from the Apostle Paul (Heb. 3:1-6), the saint shows what exactly is the superiority of Christ over the greatest of the prophets, Moses 37. Finally, the saint’s favorite “soteriological argument” is presented. The Word's assimilation of the flesh allows us to talk about His death and gives this death a redemptive meaning. He assimilates the suffering and death of His flesh, and therefore He alone, equal to all, redeems everyone with His blood. The Word voluntarily dies through His flesh and is resurrected as God in the flesh, enriching human nature with immortality. Redemption and renewal of human nature would have been impossible if Christ had been a “man” and an “instrument of the Godhead” 38 . So, in contrast to Nestorius, for whom “Christ” is only a kind of “person of unity” of two natures that remain actually separated, the saint argues that behind everything said about Christ in the Holy Scriptures and the Nicene Symbol, there is only one “subject,” and this is none other than God the Word who became flesh. But he gives no reason to suspect himself of some kind of “monophysitism,” even a purely verbal one. The expression “natural unity” (ἑνότης φυσική) he used describes the fact that a person’s soul and body together form a single “living being,” invariably preserving natural differences. And this, in turn, is an example of the unity of Christ 39 . However, despite the consistency of his theological language, the saint prefers to remain within the confines of biblical expressions and images. In general, this work sets a certain model for the saint’s subsequent Christological treatises, where he also selects patristic evidence, uses the Nicene Symbol as the basis of his argument, and devotes the most important place to the interpretation of selected passages of Holy Scripture, mainly from the epistles of the Apostle Paul 40 . The main issues raised here (the anointing of Christ, the two births of the Son, His humiliation, the assimilation of the flesh, the redemptive meaning of His death and the soteriological consequences of His resurrection) will become cross-cutting themes in the “avalanche of texts” 41 into which the polemical activity of St. will develop. Cyril on the eve of the Third Ecumenical Council. The "Message to the Monks of Egypt" was of great importance in the initial history of the Nestorian dispute. The appearance of lists from him in Constantinople immediately caused a strong reaction. Nestorius was quite annoyed by its spread in the capital, 42 which ultimately led to personal correspondence between the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople. But “many dignitaries” thanked the saint in writing for the benefit that reading this letter brought them 43. A supporter of Nestorius, Presbyter Anastasius, in interviews with the capital’s clergy, “seeking unanimity and peace,” declared the similarity of his views with the Alexandrian archbishop, since he, in his letter, admitted the absence of the name “Theotokos” in the Nicene symbol 44 . Soon the Nestorians compiled two works, one of which directly refuted the “Epistle to the Monks,” and the other, without mentioning the name of the Alexandrian saint, was directed against his “theopaschism” 45 . Thus, this message became the cause of the first serious conflict of St. Cyril with the camp of Nestorius’s supporters and helped clarify the positions of both sides. The saint’s opponents also had this in mind later, during the debate around the “12 anathematisms.” Bishop Andrew of Samosata, on behalf of the “eastern” bishops, pointed out to the saint the alleged contradiction of his controversial “chapters” with this epistle 46 . The role of the “Epistle to the Monks” in the history of later Christological disputes does not seem to be as representative as, say, the “conciliar” epistles of the saint or his epistles to Sukkens. Nevertheless, the “Message to the Monks” was well known and certain passages from it continued to be discussed in the polemics between the Orthodox and the Monophysites. Thus, John of Caesarea pointed to the diphysite content of the “anthropological paradigm”, as it is used here by St. Kirill 47. And in the famous Christological florilegium of the V-VI centuries. (Florilegium Cyrillianum), compiled by the defenders of the Council of Chalcedon and disputed by Severus of Antioch, included seven extracts from it 48. This message is available in the edition of J. D. Mansi 49 , but in the patrolology of J. P. Migne 50 it is reproduced along with a Latin translation from an earlier edition by J. Aubert 51 . Our translation was made from the edition of E. Schwartz, in which it reveals the acts of the Third Ecumenical (Ephesian) Council 52. The Holy Scriptures are quoted primarily from the Synodal translation, and deviations from it are noted. Words not found in the Greek text are added in parentheses for clarity. The translator expresses his gratitude to Rev. Tikhon (Zimin), who kindly agreed to verify the translation and made a number of valuable comments. (1) Cyril to the presbyters and deacons, the monastic fathers, and those who struggle with you in the desert life, rooted in the faith of God, beloved and most desired, rejoice in the Lord. According to the custom established in Alexandria, some of yours arrived here, and when I asked and intensely probed whether you yourself, following in the footsteps of the immaculate life of your fathers, strive to be adorned with a right and impeccable faith, whether you exalt yourself with the most beautiful way of life and show off with ascetic labors, considering the courageous acceptance of suffering for the sake of virtue as true pleasure, they answered me that this is exactly how everything is. you, and added that you compete with the valiant deeds of your predecessors with even greater curiosity. Therefore, I couldn’t help but rejoice, and my heart was consoled with joy, because I consider the good fame of my children to be my own, and with good reason. Thus, the mentors of gymnasts rejoice at the strength of the young men, and when they have something that brings praise to the art, they place it on their heads, like some kind of victorious wreath, and share with them a sense of pride in their courage. And you must agree, it would be strange if we, the spiritual fathers, who encourage you with speeches to good courage, so that you, having overcome the movements of the flesh and refusing to fall into sin and give in to the Satan who tempts you, would obtain a reward for yourself - if we, much more than these mentors, were not filled with God-loving joy 54 . (2) Therefore, as the Savior’s disciple said: Making every effort to do this, show in your faith virtue, in virtue prudence, in prudence self-control, in self-control patience, in patience godliness, in godliness brotherly kindness, in brotherly kindness love. If this is in you and multiplies, then you will not remain without success and fruit in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ 55. After all, I am sure that those who wish to strive on the glorious and lovable path of contemplative life in Christ must first exalt themselves with simple and intact faith and apply virtue to it, and when this happens, then try to become richer in the knowledge of the Mystery of Christ and completely ascend to the most perfect understanding. After all, this means, I think, to achieve a perfect husband and come to the measure of his full age 56. Therefore, having resolutely girt your loins with abstinence befitting monks, overcome the passions of the soul, and together with the body, for in this way you will shine, receive good fame and remain in the good hope prepared for the saints. And above all else, let there be in you a right and fully fulfilled faith, since this is how you yourself, following the piety of the holy fathers, will rest with them in the heavenly abodes and dwell in those heavenly tents, which the divine Isaiah mentioned, saying: Thy eyes will see Jerusalem, a rich city, the tents will not be shaken 57 . (3) So, it has not escaped me that a glorious and admirable life and a right and artless faith are affirmed in you, and how could it [be otherwise]? However, I was quite alarmed when I heard that a burdensome rumor had reached you and that someone was walking among you, stealing your simple faith 58, spewing out a lot of empty speeches, trying and asking whether or not the Holy Virgin should be called the Mother of God. And it would be better for you to completely retreat from such research and not delve at all into objects that are barely contemplated as if in a mirror and fortune-telling 59 by those who have achieved perfection in reasoning and have an unshakable mind - after all, the most subtle speculations are inaccessible to the minds of the inexperienced. But since such conversations have not escaped your ears and someone has decided, probably, to start an argument and, like some kind of splinter, to insert into unconfirmed minds the destruction that is in them, I thought that I should definitely tell you at least a little something about this. And not at all so that you get involved in verbal disputes, but so that if someone begins to tempt you, you would oppose their idle talk with the truth, thereby you yourself would avoid harm from error, and you would come to the aid of others, with proper reasoning convincing them, as brothers, to hold in their souls the faith that from ancient times and from the holy apostles was handed down to the Churches as a kind of valuable pearl 60 . (4) So, I’m surprised, does anyone really doubt whether or not to call the Holy Virgin Theotokos? After all, if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is it that the Mother of God is not the Virgin who gave birth? Such faith was conveyed to us by the divine disciples, even if they did not mention this expression; We learned to think this way from the Holy Fathers. And here is our father Athanasius of illustrious memory, who adorned the throne of the Alexandrian Church for forty-six years, contrasting the weaving words of wicked heretics with some irresistible apostolic reason. With his writings, as if with some fragrant ointment, he rejoiced the heavenly world, and everyone testified to the correctness and accuracy of his dogmas. He, having compiled for us a book about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, in its third word and above and below calls the Holy Virgin Theotokos, and I will need to use his sayings, which literally contain the following: “However, this is the purpose and distinctive feature of the Divine Scripture, as we have often said, so that the Savior should be proclaimed in two ways: both that He always was and is God and the Son, being the Word, radiance and Wisdom of the Father, and that finally, for our sake, taking upon Himself flesh from the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, He became man” 61. And further: “Many became holy and pure from all sin: Jeremiah was sanctified from his mother’s womb 62, and John leaped joyfully 63 from the voice of the Mother of God Mary” 64. But this man is trustworthy, and one should confidently rely on him, for he would never say anything that disagrees with the sacred teachings. Indeed, how can a man so brilliant and famous, who was the subject of surprise for everyone at the holy and great Council, I mean convened at one time in Nicaea, sin in the truth? After all, he had not yet received the throne of bishopric, and he was only numbered among the clergy, but for the sake of insight and other virtues, as well as a subtle and incomparable mind, in such early years he was received by Bishop Alexander of blessed memory and stayed next to this elder, like a son with his father, guiding him to everything useful and excellently showing the path in each of the proper accomplishments. (5) But someone will probably consider it necessary that, in addition to this, we also support the reasoning from the Holy and God-inspired Scripture itself, and in addition will notice that this holy and great Council neither called the Mother of the Lord the Mother of God, nor did it give any definition on this matter at all. Therefore, let us now, as far as possible, show the Mystery of the economy comprehended in Christ, how it was announced to us by Divine Scripture, and also what those same Fathers wanted to say when they issued a definition of immaculate faith, when the Holy Spirit truly sounded in them. For they did not speak according to the saying of the Savior, but the Spirit of God and the Father spoke in them 65 . After all, when it is thus revealed that the One born of the Holy Virgin is God by nature, no one at all, I think, will hesitate to think and say out loud with good reason that She can be called the Mother of God. Our creed is this: (6) “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father, that is, from His essence, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being, both in heaven and on earth, for our sakes as men, and for the sake of our salvation, who came down, became incarnate, became man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit." (7) The fact is that the inventors of heresies, digging a destructive pit for themselves and, of course, for others, fell into such futility of thoughts that they assumed and expressed that the existence of the Son was recent and that He was brought into existence by God and the Father on an equal basis with creation. And these unfortunates do not blush, although they limit themselves to the temporary leadership of the One who is before every age and time and, moreover, is the Creator of the ages. And depriving Him, as, of course, it seems to them, equality with God and the Father and His glory, they barely allow Him to have superiority over the rest and claim that He is a mediator between God and men, 66 neither receiving the glory of superiority as an inheritance, nor remaining within the limits inherent in creation. Who then is He, inferior to the Divine supremacy and removed from the limits inherent in creation? This is completely incomprehensible, and no place or concept is discerned between the Creator and the creation. Thus, casting Him down from the seat of the Godhead, as far as, of course, it is in their power, they, nevertheless, consider it necessary to call Him God and Son and worship Him, although the law openly proclaims: Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and serve Him alone, 67 and God says in the voice of David: Thou shalt not have a new god, neither shalt thou worship a strange god 68. (8) But they, leaving aside the truth, like some kind of passable road, rush into holes and onto rocks and, as Solomon says, turn away from the paths of their field and gather up the barrenness with their hands 69 . We, those in whose minds the Divine light shone, having chosen a way of thinking incomparably better than their feeble-mindedness and following the faith of the Holy Fathers, affirm that the Son was truly born from the essence of God and the Father in a godly and ineffable manner, and that He is comprehended in His own hypostasis, being one in the identity of essence with the One who gave birth to Him, and although He Himself is in Him, He, in turn, has the Father in Himself 70. And we confess that He is “light from light, God from God,” having by nature equality with Him in glory and creative power, mark and radiance, 71 in everything being on equal terms with Him and in no way inferior to Him. For if we include the Holy Spirit here, then the Holy and consubstantial Trinity is united into one nature of the Divinity. (9) But the inspired Scripture says that the Word from God became flesh, 72 that is, united with flesh having a rational soul, and, following the preaching of the Gospel, the holy and great Council said that the Only Begotten, born of the essence of God and the Father, through whom are all things and in whom are all things, 73 “for the sake of us men and for the sake of our salvation,” came down from heaven, became incarnate and became man, suffered and was resurrected and that in due time he would come as a Judge, and he called the Word from God “the one Lord Jesus Christ.” So notice, speaking about the one Son and calling Him Lord Jesus Christ, he claims that He was born of God and the Father and is “the Only Begotten, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, and consubstantial with the Father.” (10) However, about the name “Christ” (Anointed One) we can say that it is not suitable only for the Only Begotten, because we will find that it has been adopted by others. Namely, God said about the elect and sanctified in the Spirit: Touch not My anointed and do not harm My prophets 74 . And the divine David, anointed by God as king by the hand of Samuel, calls Saul the Lord’s anointed 75. And why do I say this, when those who wish can easily see that those justified by faith in Christ and sanctified in the Spirit are honored by this title? And in fact, the prophet Habakkuk foretold the Mystery of Christ and salvation through Him, saying: You came out to save Your people, to save Your anointed 76. Consequently, the name of Christ can be suitable not only and not for Emmanuel himself, but also for all others, no matter who is anointed with the grace of the Holy Spirit. This expression comes from the corresponding action, and from the anointing - the anointed ones. And that we ourselves are enriched by this glorious and truly worthy of acceptance grace, this is confirmed by the wise John, saying: You have the anointing of the Holy One and know everything 77 - and again: You have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His 78 anointing teaches you 79 . But it is also written about Emmanuel: God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power 80. Yes, and the Divine David speaks to Him: You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore, O God, Your God has anointed You with the oil of joy more than Your fellows 81 . Then what advantage can be seen in the Holy Virgin compared to the others, even if we say that She gave birth to Emmanuel? For it would not be at all absurd to call the mother of each of the anointed the mother of Christ. (11) However, vast distance and incomparable differences separate what is proper to us from the glory and excellence of our Savior. For we are ministers, and He is by nature Lord and God, even when by dispensation He found Himself with us in that which is peculiar to us. That is why blessed Paul called Him Christ and God, saying this: For know that no fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous person, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God 82 . Consequently, although all others, as I said, can be, quite legally, anointed (Christs) through anointing, yet only Emmanuel is Christ and the true God, and he will not sin against the truth who begins to say that the mothers of others, although they are “Christ Mothers,” are not yet “Theotokos,” and only one Holy Virgin is considered and called together both Christ Mother and the Mother of God. For She gave birth not to a simple man like us, but to the Word incarnate and made man from God the Father. For although we ourselves are called gods by grace, yet such a God is not the Son, but He is God by nature and truth, even when He became flesh. (12) But you will probably ask: “Then tell me, has the Virgin really become the Mother of the Divine?” And to this we answer that, although, undoubtedly, from the very essence of God and the Father His living and hypostatic Word was born, and It has an existence without beginning in relation to time, eternally co-present with the One who gave birth, and in Him, and with Him, existing and comprehended, however, in the last times of the age, as soon as It became flesh, that is, united with flesh that has a rational soul, they say about It that It was born fleshly through a woman. And in some respects the Sacrament relating to Him is similar to the birth that is characteristic of us. After all, although the mothers of those who are on earth, by nature, serve the birth, having in the womb flesh, which little by little becomes denser and through some inexpressible Divine actions develops and reaches a perfect human form, but God sends the spirit to this living being in the way that He Himself knows. For He creates the spirit of man in him, 83 according to the saying of the prophet. But the flesh has a different concept (λόγος) 84, and the soul has a different concept in the same way. And although they became mothers only of bodies from the earth, nevertheless they say that at their birth they gave birth to a whole living being, that is, from soul and body, and not a part. And it cannot be said, for example, that although Elizabeth is a “mother-mother,” she is not a “soul-mother,” because she gave birth to the Baptist as an animate, and to man as one of two, that is, from soul and body. We agree that something similar happened at the birth of the Only Begotten 85. Namely, although the Only Begotten Word, as I said, was born from the essence of God and His Father, but since He, having received flesh and assimilated It to Himself, was called the Son of Man and became like us, then it is quite appropriate, I think, and even necessary to confess that He was born according to the flesh through a woman. This is exactly the same as the soul of a person is born together with his own body and is considered one thing with it, although in comparison with it it is comprehended and exists as different in nature, according to its concept 86. And if anyone wants to say about the mother of so-and-so that although she is a “mother-of-mother” and not a “mother-of-soul,” this will be complete idle talk, for she gave birth, as I said, to a living being, skillfully composed of dissimilar parts, albeit from two, but one person. Moreover, each of these two remains what it is, but they seem to flock into a natural unity and, as it were, mix with each other what is their own. (13) And that unity in Christ is absolutely necessary can be understood easily and without any effort from many other things. In fact, let us, if you please, consider the sayings of Blessed Paul, carefully and as subtly as possible delving into them with our minds. So, he said about the Only Begotten: Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking on the form of a servant, being in human likeness, and becoming in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself 87 . So who is He, who was in the image of God and did not consider it robbery to be equal with God? And how did He humble Himself, and how did He descend into humility, moreover, in the form of a servant? So, if those who divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two, that is, into man and into the Word from God, claim that He who was from the Holy Virgin suffered this humiliation, separating from Him the Word from God, let them first show that He was both comprehended and was in the form of the Father and in equality with Him, in order to endure a certain humiliation, descending into what He was not. However, nothing created, if understood by its own nature, is in equality with the Father; then why is it said that He humbled himself, if He, being, like us, a man by nature, was born of a woman? From what, tell me, seniority, greater than man, did He descend to be a man? And how can it be considered that He took on the form of a servant, as if He did not have it in the beginning, if He is by nature numbered among the servants and is under the yoke of slavery? (14) Yes, they object to me, the Son by nature and truth, free, the Word from God the Father, existing in the image of the Parent and being equal to Him, settled in a man born through a wife, and this is precisely what humiliation, humility and condescension to the image of a slave consist of. It turns out, my dear ones, that the mere fact that the Word of God took up residence in man would be sufficient for His humiliation, and we can safely say that this is how He put on the image of a servant, and this is exactly how His image of humility would turn out to be? But I hear what was said to the holy apostles: He who loves Me will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make our abode with him 88 . Do you hear Him saying that God the Father Himself will dwell among those who love Him? So, does this mean that we will also allow Him to endure the humility similar to the Son, and to take on the image of a servant, since He makes the souls of those who love Him holy abodes? But what about the Spirit who dwells in us? Is He really also fulfilling the economy of the Incarnation, which, we affirm, was accomplished by the Son alone for the sake of the salvation and life of all? Away with these so useless and completely meaningless inventions! (15) Therefore, existing in the form of God the Father and in equality with Him, the Word humbled Himself when, according to John, He became flesh 89 and was born of a woman, and He Who has the birth of God the Father endured for our sakes also what is natural to us (the birth). Further, let them explain how we can consider and call the Word from God the Father Christ, since the name of Christ is given by the anointing, whom the Father anointed with the oil of gladness, 90 that is, with the Holy Spirit? So, if (He anointed) separately and only the Word begotten of God, if they accept this as truth, then they do not understand how much they dishonor the nature of the Only Begotten and distort the Sacrament of economy with the flesh. After all, when the Word, being God, is anointed by the Holy Spirit, then they involuntarily confess that, existing in primordial times, It had absolutely no sanctification, since at that time it was not yet involved in the gift that was given to Him later. But that which needs sanctification is unstable by nature and cannot be considered completely free from sin, that is, from the possibility of committing a sin. It turns out then that the Word has undergone a change for the better. How then is He the same 91 and does not change 92? And since the Word, being God, in the image of the Father and equality with Him, is anointed and sanctified, someone can equally say, involuntarily brought by such a state of affairs to the loss of common sense, that perhaps the Father Himself needs sanctification. And moreover, the Son turned out to be greater than Him, since He was sanctified, being before sanctification equal to the Father and in His image, and the Father remained in the state in which He always was, is and will be, having not yet received the addition leading to a better state, that is, he was not sanctified in the likeness of the Son. And the Spirit who sanctifies them is seen as greater than both, since it is certain that without any contradiction the lesser is blessed by the greater 93 . But this is nonsense, nonsense and madness. For the Trinity is holy by nature, the Father is holy, and likewise the Son is holy in essence, and likewise the Spirit. Therefore, so far as His own nature is concerned, the Word itself from God the Father was not sanctified. (16) Well, if anyone decides that only one born of the Holy Virgin is anointed and sanctified, by virtue of which he is called Christ, let him first say whether the anointing was sufficient to reveal the anointed one equal in glory and co-throne with God, Who is above all things 94 . And if it is enough, if they begin to say that this is the truth, then we are also anointed, and the divine John will be a witness to this: And you have the anointing of the Holy One 95. Then, perhaps, we ourselves will be in equality with God, and I think that nothing at all prevents us from sitting with Him, just as, of course, Emmanuel Himself (sits), because it was said to Him: Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool 96 . Let the holy multitude of the highest spirits worship us, since it is said: When He introduces the Firstborn into the universe, He says: and let all the angels of God worship Him 97 . But although we are anointed by the Holy Spirit, enriched by the grace of adoption and called gods, we will not forget about the limitations of our own nature. After all, we are earthly and numbered among the servants, but He is by nature and truly the Lord of all, and He is from heaven. (17) And since we have chosen right thoughts, we do not say either that God the Father became flesh, or that the nature of the Divinity was born through the Virgin, without yet receiving humanity. Reducing to unity the Word begotten of God and man (born perfect of the Virgin), we will worship the one Jesus Christ and Lord, without placing Him outside the Divinity because of the flesh and without reducing Him to a simple man because of the similarity with us. Thus you will understand that the Word, born of God, suffered voluntary humiliation; Thus He humbled Himself, taking the form of a slave, free by His nature 98 ; Thus He took on the seed of Abraham and partook of flesh and blood 99 . For if we think of Him as a simple man like us, then how did He take on the seed of Abraham, who was different in nature from Him? And how is it said about Him that He partook of His own flesh in order to become like His brothers in everything? 100 For that which is said to be likened to something, certainly from something dissimilar rushes towards this likeness. (18) Therefore, the Word of God received the seed of Abraham and partook of blood and flesh, taking upon Himself a body from the wife, so that through this union we would recognize that He not only exists as God, but has already become a man like us. Therefore, although it is certain that Immanuel is from two things (ἐκ δυοῖν πραγμάτων), Divinity and humanity, yet the Lord Jesus Christ is one, the only and true God the Son and at the same time man. Moreover, it was not a man who was deified on an equal basis with those who were deified by grace who appeared, but the true God who appeared in human form for our sake. But the divine Paul will also assure us of this, saying: But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, who was born of a woman, born under the law 101 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive adoption as sons 102 . And who is this Messenger, born, as it is said, under the law and from a woman, unless He, like God, was above the law, and when he was called a man, he was also under the law, in order to become like his brothers in everything? 103 After all, He even paid the didrachm together with Peter, according to the law of Moses, but at the same time he taught that he was free as a Son and greater than the law as God, even being under the law as a man, saying: From whom do the kings of the earth take duties or taxes? from your own sons, or from strangers? And when Peter said: from strangers, He added: So, the sons are free 104. Now, since it is obvious that Christ cannot be called something that exists outside the flesh and is, as it were, the Word itself from God, but this name suits Him when He became a man, let us show, selecting evidence from the Holy Scriptures themselves, that He is God by nature, even when brought into unity with His own flesh. And when this turns out to be true, then we will be able to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God, and with good reason. (19) So, the prophet Isaiah pointed to the Son, who had almost become incarnate, but had not yet come, saying: Be strong, weak hands and feeble knees. Take comfort, you who are timid in mind, be strong, do not be afraid: behold, our God will and will reward judgment; He will come and save us. Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf will hear. Then the lame will jump like a deer, and the tongue of the tongue-tied will be clear 105. Pay attention to how he calls Emmanuel Lord and calls Him God, while saying in the Spirit that he recognized in Him not just a God-bearing man or perceived as an instrument, 106 but truly God incarnate. After all, it was then that the eyes of the blind were opened, and the ears of the deaf heard, then the lame man galloped like a deer, and the tongue of the tongue-tied became clear. Thus the Spirit commanded the holy apostles to proclaim Him, saying: Go up to the high mountain, O One who brings good news to Zion! Lift up your voice with power, bringing good news to Jerusalem! Lift up, do not be afraid; say to the cities of Judah: This is your God! Behold the Lord, the Lord comes with power, and His arm with power, behold His reward is with Him, and His work is before Him. Like a shepherd, He will feed His flock, and with His arm He will gather the lambs 107. For our Lord Jesus Christ appeared to us, having the strength and arm with authority due to God, that is, possessing power and dominion. That is why He said to the leper: I want, be cleansed 108 - he touched the coffin and raised up the dead son of the widow 109. But He gathered the lambs, because He is the good Shepherd, who laid down His soul for the sheep. That is why He said: As the Father knows Me, so I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep which are not of this fold, and these I must bring: and they will hear My voice, and there will be one flock and one Shepherd 110. And beginning the sermon about Him, the divine Baptist preached the gospel to all those living in Judea, not about the instrument of the Divine and not about a simple God-bearing man like some, but about God in the flesh, that is, about God made man, saying: Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight 111. So whose path did he command to prepare if not Christ, that is, the Word who appeared in the form of a man? And I think that to be assured of this, the words of the divine Paul are sufficient, who testifies and says: What shall we say? 112 If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His Son, but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also give us all things with Him? 113 Then tell me, how can He who is from the Virgin be considered the Son of God and His own for Him? After all, just as for a person, and for every other living being, what is born of him by nature is his own, so that which is from His essence can be considered and called His own to God. Why then is Christ called His God, Who was given by God and the Father for the salvation and life of all? For He was delivered up for our sins, 114 and He bore the sins of many 115 in His body on the tree, 116 according to the saying of the prophet. Therefore, it is obvious that the recognition of unity inevitably shows the Son of God to be the One who is from the Holy Virgin, since the body that was born from Her did not belong to another of our kind, but was its own to the Word Himself, who is from the Father. (21) If anyone assigns Him only service as a mere instrument, he will inevitably begin to deny that He is the true Son. Indeed, let us take as an example a certain, say, person, and let him have a child who is excellently trained in the art of playing the lyre. So will this person count the lyre and the song instrument among the sons along with the son? But isn't this a fair amount of absurdity? After all, while the instrument is used in order for (the son) to demonstrate his art, he himself, apart from him, remains a son for the parent. Well, if they say that (born) of the Virgin was used as an aid so that miracles could be performed through him and the preaching of the Gospel institutions would shine through, then let each of the holy prophets be called an instrument of the Divine. And above all the rest - the sacred mystery (ἱεροφάντης) Moses, who, stretching out the rod, turned the rivers into blood 117, dividing the sea itself, commanded the Israelites to walk among the waves 118, and by hitting the rocks with it, he made them sources of water, and the rocky cliffs turned out to be water springs 119. He also became a mediator between God and people 120, was a servant of the law and led the people. Then it turns out that there was nothing more than this in Christ, and He was in no way superior to those who came before Him, since He was used on an equal basis with them as an auxiliary instrument among others, and the divine David probably uttered empty words, saying: For whoever in the clouds can be compared with the Lord, will be like the Lord among the sons of God? 121 (22) But the wise Paul declares Moses to be numbered among the ministers, and calls him God and Lord who was born according to the dispensation of a woman 122, that is, Christ. Namely, he has this written: Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus Christ, who is faithful to Him who appointed Him, as was Moses in all His house. For He is worthy of greater glory before Moses, in proportion as the one who built it has greater honor in comparison with the house, for every house is built by someone; and the one who arranged everything is God. And Moses was faithful in all His house as a minister, to testify to what was to be declared; Christ is like a Son in His house 123; His house is us 124. So pay attention that he both preserves with Him the limits of humanity, and attributes to Him the excellence of the highest glory and dignity befitting God. After all, calling Him High Priest and Messenger and, moreover, very persistently assuring that He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, (the apostle) says that He was honored more than Moses, and then adds that every house is built by someone; and the one who arranged everything is God. So, if Moses is counted among those who were created and arranged, it is declared about Christ that He is the Organizer of everything, although God, as it is said, arranged everything. Therefore, there can be no doubt that He is God and, moreover, the true one. And if Moses is faithful throughout the house as a servant, Christ is as the Son in His house, and we are His house, although God speaks with a prophetic voice: I will dwell in them and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people 125. (23) But it will also be asked: what difference can be seen between Christ and Moses, if both of them were born through wives? Why is one a servant, faithful in the whole house, while the other is Lord by nature, like the Son, and in His house, that is, in us? But I just think that for everyone there is an obvious answer to this, if, of course, one has sound reasoning and the mind of Christ 126, according to Blessed Paul. Namely, one was a man and was under the yoke of slavery, the other was free, like God and the Creator of everything, although he suffered voluntary humiliation for our sake. But even this will not remove Him from the glory befitting the Divinity, nor will it remove Him from the greatest superiority over everything, and how? After all, just as we, having been enriched by His Spirit, for He dwelt in our souls 127, are numbered among the children of God, but have not lost our inherent existence, since by nature we are human, although we say to God: Abba, Father 128, so God the Word Himself, who inexpressibly shone forth from the essence of God and the Father, although he honored (human) nature by taking on the human, yet did not find himself outside of His superiority, but even remained God in humanity. Therefore, we will not say that the church of the Virgin was used as an instrument, but rather, following the faith of the sacred scriptures and the sayings of the saints, we will dwell on the fact that the Word became flesh 129, as has already been explained in many ways above. Thus He laid down His soul for us. For since His death was the salvation of the world, He endured the Cross, despising the shame, 130 even though He was Life by nature as God. Then how is it said about Life that it has died? (She died), having suffered death in Her flesh in order to reveal Himself as Life, which revives it again. (24) Indeed, if we ourselves carefully examine the image of death, won’t anyone with sense say that souls are not destroyed along with bodies from the earth? But I think that this is not a matter of doubt for anyone, this only indicates the essential property (τὸ συμβεβηκός) of human death. Understand this also in relation to Emmanuel Himself. Namely, the Word was in the body of the woman, as in His own, and at a certain time gave it up to death. And although It Itself does not suffer in the least in its own nature, because It is Life and life-giving, it nevertheless assimilates those things pertaining to the flesh, so that it can be said that suffering belongs to It and One, being equal to all, having died for all, redeems with His blood what is in heaven and wins for God and the Father (who live) throughout the whole earth. And this, as an undoubted truth, is proclaimed by the blessed prophet Isaiah, saying in the Spirit: Therefore He will receive many as an inheritance and will divide the spoils with the mighty, because His soul was delivered to death, and He is numbered with the transgressors, and He bore the sins of many and was betrayed for their iniquities 131 . (25) So, one, being more valuable than all, laid down His soul for all, and although, according to the economy, he allowed the flesh to be reduced to death for a short time, he, in turn, abolished death, as Life, which does not allow suffering that is contrary to its own nature, so that in all bodies corruption would lose its power and the dominion of death would recede. For just as in Adam we all die, so in Christ we will all be made alive 132 . After all, if He did not humanly endure suffering for everyone, it means that He did not divinely accomplish what is necessary for our salvation. For He, as it is said, first died as a man, and after that He came to life, since He is God by nature. Therefore, if He did not undergo mortification in the flesh, according to the Scriptures, then He was not quickened by the Spirit 133, that is, He did not come to life. And if this is the truth, then our faith is vain: we are still in our sins 134. For we were baptized into His death 135, according to the words of Blessed Paul, and received forgiveness of sins through His Blood 136. (26) But if Christ is neither the true Son nor God by nature, but only a man conformed to us and an instrument of the Divinity, then we are not saved in God. And how could this be? On the contrary, it turns out that one of our kind died for everyone and was resurrected by outside forces. And how then was death abolished through Christ? However, I clearly hear what He says about His soul: No one takes it from Me, but I myself give it. I have the power to give it away, and I have the power to give it away again 137. For He, who does not know death, descended into death with us through His flesh, so that we too could ascend to life with Him. After all, He came to life, having plundered hell, not as a man like us, but as God in the flesh, together with us and for our sake. (Human) nature was enriched in Him, especially the first, with immortality, and death, which attacked the body of Life like an enemy, was defeated, for just as it conquered in Adam, so it fell in Christ. And to the One who ascends because of us and for our sake to the Father and God who is in heaven, in order to make heaven accessible to those on earth, the divine singer sends up songs of victory, saying: God ascended with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet. Sing to our God, sing! Sing to our King, sing! Sing wisely! God reigned over all nations 138. Blessed Paul also said about Him: He who descended, He also ascended above all the heavens, in order to fill everything 139. (27) Therefore, when the Crucified One is true God, and King by nature, and, as it is said, Lord of glory 140, can one hesitate to call the Holy Virgin Theotokos? Worship Him as one, without dividing into two after union; then the foolish Jew will mock in vain, then truly he will be the murderer of the Lord, and will be convicted of having sinned not against one of our kind, but against the Savior of all God Himself, and will hear: Alas, a sinful people, a people burdened with sins, an evil seed, wicked sons! You have forsaken the Lord, you have angered the Holy One of Israel 141. And the children of the Hellenes will in no way ridicule the faith of Christians, because we are not serving an ordinary person - let it not be! - but God by nature, and His glory is not unknown to us, even if He became like us, remaining what He was, that is, God. Through Him and with Him, glory to God and the Father with the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen. Acts 1910 – Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, published in Russian translation at the Kazan Theological Academy. T. 1. Kaz., 3 1910. Acts of 1892 – Acts of the Ecumenical Councils... T. 2. Kaz., 2 1892. Liébaert 1970 – Liebaert J. L’évolutiondela christologiedesaint Cyrille d’Alexandrie à partir de la controverse nestorienne // Mélanges de science religieuse. 1970. No. 1. Avril. P. 27–48. Loofs 1905 – Loofs F. Nestoriana. Die Fragmente des Nestorius. Halle, 1905. Loon 2009 – Loon H. van. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Brill, Leiden, Boston, 2009 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae. Vol. 96). McGuckin 1994 – McGuckin J. A. St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Christological controversy. Brill, Leiden, 1994 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae. Vol. 23). Meunier 1998 – Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Dix-septième festale (429) // Lettres festales XII-XVII / Texte grec par W. H. Burns. Traduction et annotation par M. Boulnois et V. Menier. SC 434. Paris, 1998. P. 251–299. BU TSO. No. 1273–1286. For more information, see the introductory article: BV 5–6. 2005–2006. pp. 493–498. Index to the journal “Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation” and “Additions to the publication of Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation” (1887–1891). SP, 1912. P. 3–4; Index to the magazine “Theological Bulletin” (1st decade, 1892–1901) / Comp. K. M. Popov. SP, 1903. pp. 9–10. Kazansky P.I. On the historical significance of the books of the minor prophets // PribTSO 25. 1872. Book. 1. pp. 103–165 (1st page); It's him. The state of the kingdom of Judah under Hezekiah, Manasseh, Ammon and Josiah // CHOLDP. 1875. No. 2. P. 144–172; It's him. The state of the Jews after the Babylonian captivity // CHOLDP. 1876. No. 5. pp. 307–333. Korsunsky I. Translation LXX. Its significance in the history of Greek language and literature. SP, 1897. Korsunsky I. Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. M., 1882; It's him. New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament. M., 1885; etc. Index to the magazine “Theological Bulletin” (2nd decade, 1902–1911) / Comp. K. M. Popov. SP, 1912. pp. 9–10. TSO 68 (70). 1912. pp. 320–539. St. Cyril of Alexandria. A word against those who do not want to confess the Holy Virgin as Theotokos. Conversation with Nestorius about the fact that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, and not the Mother of Christ / Transl. from Greek priest V. Dmitrieva // Works of students of the Imperial Moscow Theological Academy. Vol. 1. SP, 1915. St. Cyril of Alexandria. About right faith to queens / Transl. from ancient Greek priest Vasily Dmitrieva, editor. lane and will enter, article Herod. Theodora (Yulaeva) // BV 8–9. 2008–2009. pp. 68–151. Unfortunately, any detailed information about Fr. We do not have V. Dmitriev. Er. 1. Ad monachos Aegypti. ACO I, 1, 1. pp. 10–23. CPG 5301. Most thoroughly - in the “Dialogue on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” (De incam. Unig. / Éd. par G. M. Durand. Paris, 1964. SC 97. P. 188–301. CPG 5227 (BV 5–6. P. 85–150)). In our place, we presented the argument of its publisher J. Durand, who attributed the “Dialogue ...” to the time before 428 (BV 5–6. 67–78). This dating is currently considered the most likely (Loon 2009, pp. 259–262). Er. pasch. 17/Éd. par W. H. Burns, M. Boulnois, V. Meunier. Paris, 1998. SC 434. P. 254–295. CPG 5240. “Easter messages”, or “Easter homilies”, are traditional annual district messages in which the Alexandrian patriarch informed his flock about the time of Easter celebration and gave certain dogmatic and moral instructions. B. Meunier, a major specialist in the Christology of St. Cyril and one of the publishers of the 17th “Easter Epistle” in the “Christian Sources” series, accompanied this publication with a special note about the features of the Christological language of St. Cyril in this work (Meunier 1998, pp. 297–299). “The 17th Easter Message” and “Message to the Monks” are analyzed in detail in one of the articles by the outstanding French scientist J. Liebaire, a specialist in the history of Christological disputes and an expert in the theology of St. Kirill (Liébaert 1970). Here he compares them, in particular, with the surviving fragments of Nestorius. A detailed analysis of these messages, their terminology and Christology as a whole, along with other works of the initial stage of the Nestorian polemics, is presented in the latest major monograph by the Dutch researcher G. Loon, dedicated to the Christology of the Alexandrian saint (Loon 2009, pp. 290–316). J. Liébaert determines the time of its writing, based on the chronological table of the publisher of the conciliar acts E. Schwartz (ACO I. 1, 1. R. 6–14), January-February (Liébaert 1970. R. 35. N. 42), G. Loon - February (Loon 2009. R. 303), J. McGuckin - in the spring of 429. (McGuckin 1994. R. 245. N. 1). Li é baert 1970. R. 27; McGuckin 1994, p. 32; Meipie r 1998. R. 251; Loon 2009. R. 262. Er. 1, 3. ASO I, 1, 1. R. 11:12–26. Er. 2. Ad Nestorium. ACO 1,1,1. P. 24:3–7, 9–11, 24–27. CPG 5302 (Acts 1910 p. 142); Er. 8. Ad vituperatores. ACO I, 1, 1. P. 109:7–9 (Acts 1910. pp. 150–151); Ep. 11, 4. Ad Caelest. papam. ACO I, 1, 5. P. 11:15–19. CPG 5310 (Acts 1910, p. 159). J. Liebaire doubts whether these disputes actually occurred. He wonders whether the reference to them was not only a pretext to present a criticism of the views of Nestorius (Liébaert 1970, p. 35, no. 43). But his doubts are not supported by any documentation. Er. 11, 4. ACO I, 1, 5. R. 11:19–21 (Acts 1910, p. 159). The first letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius dates back to the middle of 429 (Loon 2009, p. 262). In his first letter to Nestorius, he pointedly expresses uncertainty whether the teachings disseminated on his behalf were expressed by himself or by “someone else” (Er. 2. Ad Nestorium. ACO I, 1, 1. P. 24: 4–6, 9–11. CPG 5302 (Acts 1910. P. 142)). And to a certain “zealous defender of Nestorius” he spoke “as if before God” about his desire that Nestorius “have a good name” and “prove that the new opinions spread by some are attributed to him for slander” (Er. 9. Ad quendam Nestorii studiosum. ACO I, 1, 1. P. 108: 24–26. CPG 5308 (Acts 1910. P. 152)). “I will not yield to anyone in my love for the most pious Archbishop Nestorius” (Ibid. 108:23–24 (p. 152)). Er. 2. ACO I, 1, 1. R. 24:11–12 (Acts 1910, p. 143). Er. 1, 4. ACO I, 1, 1. R. 11:28–29; Ibid. Sar. 5, 12:28–31; cap. 18, 19:1–2; cap. 27, 23:11–12. Cap. 10–11. 14:6–15:6. Cp.: Jo. Dam. Exp. fid. 56:47–54 / Hrsg. v. B. Kotter. B., 1973. TLG 2934/4. CPG 8043 (St. John of Damascus. Source of knowledge / Edited by D. Afinogenov. M., 2002. P. 254). Sar. 18. 18:34–36. Cp.: Cyr.Alex. Scholia de incam. unig. ACO I, 5, 1. P. 184:31– 32 P. 220:9–10. CPG 5225. Cyr. Alex. Comm, in Joan. 3, 155:5–24 / Ed. by P. E. Pusey. Oxford, 1872 (r 1965). TLG 4090/2. CPG 5208 (St. Cyril of Alexandria. Creations. T. 3. M., 2002. P. 885–886); De incam. Unig. 696:14–29 (BV 5–6. p. 118); ibid. 704:5–10 (p. 132). Sar. 12.15:30–32 (cf. Loon 2009, p. 311). This is clearly visible, for example, in his two extensive books “On the Right Faith,” intended for “royal wives” (see: BV 8–9. 69–77), and in the 3rd letter to Nestorius (Ep. 17. Ad Nestorium (una cum synodo Alex.). ACO I, 1, 1. P. 33–42 (Acts 1910. p. 191–199)). Expression of J. McGuckin (McGuckin 1994. P. 33–34). Er. 2. ACO I, 1, 1. R. 23:26–24 (Acts 1910, p. 142); Er. 8. ACO I, 1, 1. R. 109:7–9 (Acts 1910, pp. 150–151). Er. 11, 4. ACO I, 1, 5. R. 11:20–21 (Acts 1910, p. 159). Er. 10, 1. Ad apocr. Const. ACO I, 1, 1. R. 110:4–8. CPG 5309 (Acts 1910 pp. 152–153). Ibid. R. 110:18–25 (p. 153). Aroi. XII capit, contra Orient. 20. ACO I, 1, 7. P. 38:2–7. CPG 5221 (Acts 1892, p. 27). Jo. Caes. Apol. cone. Chalced. 1, 1:446–457 (cap. 51) / Ed. M. Richard. Turn-out: Brepols, 1977. Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca. 1. CPG 6855. Flor. Sug. 133:10–136:13 (cap. 65–71) / Ed. R. Hespel. Louvain, 1955. TLG 4147/1. S. P. N. Cyrilli opera omnia graece et latine... Aubertus Joannis (ed.). Lutetiae, 1638. ACO I, 1, 1. pp. 10–23. In addition, we had access to an English translation in the monograph by J. McGuckin (McGuckin 1994, pp. 245–261). This name appears in the publication of J. D. Mansi (Mansi 4, 587). It is absent in the manuscripts, but where it reveals the acts of the Council of Ephesus, sometimes an inscription is given that precedes the entire corpus of documents relating to the acts of the Third Ecumenical Council: “the first book of the acts of the Third Council”; “the succession of acts against Nestorius, a man-worshipper and a wicked man” (ACO I, 1, 1. R. 10). The saint makes a similar comparison of the spiritual father in his attitude towards his flock with the mentors of young gymnasts at the beginning of the 17th “Easter Epistle” (Ep. pasch. 17, 1: 6–12). Wed: 1 Pet. 5, 8; 2 Cor. 11, 13. Athan. Alex. Or. contra Ar. 3, 29. PG 26, 385Ä8–13. CPG 2093 (TCO 19. 1852. P. 422). Athan. Alex. Or. contra Ar. 3, 33. PC 26, 385Ä10–14 (TCO19.1852. pp. 427–428). Matt. 4, 10. Wed: Fear the Lord your God, and serve Him alone (Deut. 6:13). “His” (Bishop Cassian NA): “this very thing” (syn.). One can compare the use here of the term λόγος with the beginning of Aristotle’s “Categories”, where the “concept of essence” (λόγος τῆς οὐσίας) is considered different for homonyms and identical for synonyms (Aristot. Categ. läl-15 / Ed. L. Minio-Paluello. Oxford, 1949. TEG 86/6 (Aristotle. Works in 4 vols. T. 2. M., 1978. P. 53)), as well as with the corresponding passages of the “Philosophical Chapters” of St. John of Damascus (Joan. Dam. Dialectica 32:6–7, 33:6–7 / Hrsg. v. B. Kotter. B., 1969. TLG 2934/2. CPG 8041 (St. John of Damascus. Source of knowledge. pp. 84–85)). The rapprochement of λόγος with the concept of “essence” is found in St. Cyril and in “Commentary on the Gospel of John.” In one of his proposed interpretations of the Savior’s words: “I keep the word (λόγος) of Him,” that is, the Father (John 8:55), he understands λόγος as a definition, the boundaries (ὅ ρος) of the Divine essence. The Son observes it in Himself, since He is consubstantial with the Father (Cyr. Alex. Comm. in. Joan. 2, 128: 6–129 (St. Cyril of Alexandria. Creations. Vol. 3. pp. 284–285)). This passage stands in clear parallel to the surviving Greek passages of Nestorius's 8th homily. Nestorius also proceeds from the fact that in the womb of the mother, strictly speaking, only the body is formed, and it is animated directly by God when it takes on human form. Therefore, one cannot call the mother “soul mother,” but only “human mother.” Likewise, the Virgin gives birth to a human being, who is accompanied by God the Word, and therefore She is not the Mother of God. Elsewhere he points out that although the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (Luke 1.15), Elizabeth cannot be called a “spirit mother” (Nest. Sermo 8. CPG 5697. Loofs 1905. S. 352:6–21). F. Lufs, publisher of fragments of Nestorius, and J. Liebaire are confident that St. Cyril at this point in his Epistle to the Monks refers to the 8th homily of Nestorius, which could have been pronounced at the turn of 428–429, and his use of the “anthropological paradigm” in precisely this form is a response to its use by Nestorius (Loofs 1905, p. 158; Liébaert 1970, pp. 40–41). In his later “Pentateuch” “Against the Blasphemies of Nestorius,” the saint already directly quotes and criticizes these fragments of the 8th Homily (Cyr. Alex. Libri V contra Nest. ACO 1,1, 6, 23:31–26:10. CPG 5217). John of Caesarea refers to this place, where the natural difference between soul and body is clearly assumed, proving the diphysite content of the word used by St. Kirill “anthropological paradigm” (J o. Caes. Apol. conc. Chalced. 1, 1: 446–457 (cap. 51)). Phil. 2, 6–8 (translated by Bishop Cassian). Wed: Ps. 101, 28; Heb. 1, 12; 13, 8. Bishop Andrei Samosatsky cites this fragment of the “Message to the Monks” as evidence that St. Cyril here affirms two hypostases of Christ, since he first says: “The Word itself is from God the Father,” and then: “Only one born of the Holy Virgin.” This contradicts the 3rd anathematism, where the saint forbids dividing Christ into different hypostases after the union (Apol. XII capit, contra Orient. 20. ACO I, 1, 7. P. 38: 2–7 (Acts 1892, p. 27)). In response, the saint reproaches his opponents for taking his words out of context and distorting their meaning. He always insisted on the unity of the hypostasis of Christ, although he did not deny the difference of His natures (Ibid. cap. 27-29. P. 39: 24-40 (P. 28-29)). Sin.: “submitted to the law.” St. Cyril, both during the Nestorian dispute and earlier, allowed himself to call the body of Christ the “instrument” of His Divinity (Libri V contra Nest. ACO I, 1, 1. P. 46:28; De ineam. Unig. 692:17–20 (BV 5–6. P. 111)). But here he rejects the idea that Christ Himself, understood as “man” separated from the Word, becomes “an instrument of the Divine” (Cf. Loon 2009, pp. 313–314). Matt. 3, 3; cf.: Isa. 40, 3. Sin.: “What can I say to this?” Wed: Is. 53, 12. Yungerov: “carried.” Wed: Ps. 113, 8. See: Ref. 17, 6. Sin.: “His.” From further discussion it is clear that St. Cyril refers to the pronoun αὐτοῦ used here specifically to the Son, which corresponds to the Slavic translation: “in His house.” 2 Cor. 6.16. Wed: Lev. 26, 12; Jer. 31, 1. 33. You might be interested in: