Replies to Tiberius the deacon and the brethren

The entire treatise “Answers to Tiberius the Deacon and the Brethren” was preserved only in the Syriac translation, in a manuscript of the 7th-8th centuries. 8. In two Greek manuscripts containing it from the 11th and 12th centuries. Florentine and Vatican meetings 9 is missing the introductory letter of the Palestinian monks and the 1st chapter (answer to the 1st question). The printed edition was carried out in 1872 by F. Pusey in the collection of works of St. Cyril of Alexandria 10. He reproduced the letter of the Palestinians and the 1st chapter in Syriac from the above-mentioned manuscript. This was the first edition of the treatise in authentic form, since before that its Greek text was known only as part of a later compilation, namely: in 1605, the Flemish humanist Bonaventura Vulcanius published it as the work of St. Cyril's treatise “Against the Anthropomorphites” in Greek with a Latin translation 11. Of the twenty-eight chapters of this work, the first twenty-three contain chapters from the treatises “Answers to Tiberius the Deacon and the Brethren” and “Explanation of Dogmas” with a change in the order of chapters 12, and the last five are excerpts from the “Word on the Nativity of Christ” by St. And you will come, saying: “Here I am and the children whom You have given me, O Lord” 31 . We are few, but we have the advantage: we firmly believe that none of us will be abandoned by your prayers and that we are helped by the spiritual wisdom given to you by God. We should be grateful to you for all this, and now we do not cease to offer prayers to God for your peaceful state and long life. And having made the journey to Him, we will voluntarily present the proof of the piety that you have, imprinted on our souls. Polemical questions addressed to the famous Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, from Tiberius the deacon and eight brothers 32 Let the teaching of your holiness regarding these [issues] be with you before the throne of Christ on the day of resurrection, but for us, let it be for strengthening, for those who doubt, for support, for the wicked, for reproof or for turning to the truth. And be kind to us, in order to release the one who is free from all criticism. And after He departed, [He] fulfilling his own promise, sent from heaven the Comforter, that is, the Spirit. He is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. So is it really possible that when the Comforter descended to earth to sanctify us, the Spirit was not in heaven? But perhaps it should be said that He, having sanctified us, ascended into heaven again and is no longer with us? Although it is written that the Spirit of the Lord fills the universe 83 . But Christ Himself said, intending to ascend to the Father: “Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” 84. And if He is with us, then certainly even now, as they say, the heavens are deprived of the filial hypostasis and He, having left the Father’s bosom, dwells much more willingly with those on earth. So they are talking idle talk, as I said. Who will tolerate their stupidity after this? Or who among the more prudent will not shed copious tears for them - for those who, not knowing the sacred and divine Scriptures, without any testing vomit out what comes to their minds and fall away from the right dogmas of the Church? What did the Son say to Philip when he spoke about the Father? “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? » 85. Therefore, it is impossible for One to ever be without the Other, but wherever the Father is seen to be, and He is everywhere, the Son is certainly there; and wherever the Son is, there the Father is also. After all, if the Son is the radiance of the Father 86 and His Word, wisdom and power, 87 then how can the Father ever be thought of without the Word, power and wisdom? And how can the wisdom of God and His Word and power ever be conceived without the Father? Or how will there never be His reflection in Him? 88. And how can there be a reflection without the Father, of Whom It is a reflection? Then should they not have taken into account that the peculiarities and distinctive signs of the Divine nature are not at all the rule that are characteristic of us, but they have their own limits, are comprehended by faith and do not allow too inquisitive reasoning? After all, there is one nature of the ineffable Divinity in three special hypostases, and it is outside of our inherent concepts and does not follow what is customary for creatures. And this can be seen in many ways. Namely, we are the fathers of our children through flow and separation, because what is born retreats into separate difference (ἰδικὴν ἑτερότης), completely and completely. But it is not so, we affirm, that the Son was born of God the Father, for although He shone forth from His essence and shone like light, He did not find himself outside of Him, but He is both from Him and in Him. Also, our fathers are older than their children, but this is not at all the case with God. After all, He eternally coexists with the Father and has a beginningless existence together with His Parent, so that He also eternally appears as the Father. For there was no (time) when such things did not happen 90. After all, Paul said about Him: “Who became for us wisdom from God” 99, and again: “In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” 100. And the divine David sings to the God and Father who is in heaven: “You have guided me with Your counsel,” 101 calling Him the counsel of the Son begotten of Him. Then is it not absurd to suppose that one does not know any of the things that are in the Father, His wisdom and His counsel? And how does the only one who knows the Father 102 not know the day of the end of the world? In fact, what is preferable, from the point of view of knowledge: to know what the Father is, or to know the last day? It is also written that the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God 103. But when the Spirit, who knows the depths of God and all that is in Him, is the Spirit of the Son Himself, 104 then why does He not know the things that are in His own Father? 12). That we can cut off carnal or natural pleasures, but cannot completely eradicate them It seems to some that the wise Paul is saying something difficult or incomprehensible, 135 as the holy apostles put it. But there is no doubt that it is filled with heavenly wisdom, for Christ speaks in it 136. So, he said: “According to the inward man I delight in the law of God; but in my members I see another law, warring against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin” 137. And again: “Poor man I am! who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." 138 After all, the movement of the flesh opposes the mind, which is turned to abstinence through the fear of God, and opposes the desire for purity. However, those who live in sobriety, which befits those who worship God, hinder the movement of the flesh and dull the sting of sin, using asceticism, labor and other means of abstinence. Thus, although we cannot eradicate from the flesh the lust innate in it, through sobriety, as I said, it is possible to prevent its impudent attacks on the mind, especially when the Only Begotten Word of God became man and no longer allows the fierce law of sin to be unrestrained in our members. And this is clearly taught by the most excellent Paul, who writes: “For because the law was impossible, because it was powerless through the flesh, God, sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and because of sin, condemned sin in the flesh, 139 so that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” Thus, we will not overcome the innate movements completely and not completely, for this is left for that all-blessed life, which, as we expect, will come in the next century. But we are able to subdue and defeat the movements of the flesh, since God cooperates with us and gives us strength from above. And although lust grows stronger in those who indulge in negligence, and seems to rule over their heart, it is powerless, easily tamed and driven out of the mind by those who have divine fear. 2008 number 7. pp. 17–21). As for the patristic evidence, St. Cyril, citing them, usually pedantically notes the sources of his quotations (which was the novelty of his method, which laid the foundation for the patristic florilegies), so his literal reproduction of fragments of the homily of St. Gregory of Nyssa without indicating the author is unlikely. Finally, as already mentioned, he could not add the words “against the Agnoites” to the title of one of the chapters of his work, since this sect did not yet exist in his time. Based on the publication of X. Stamulis, the treatise “Against Anthropomorphites” was translated into Russian by S. Sulin, a 2005 MDS graduate, as a thesis (Sulin 2005). As L. Wickham notes, this question looks like a variant of the previous one only if there was an assumption made that at the Incarnation the Son, having left heaven, “left” His Divinity there; here it is implied that He left heaven along with the Divinity. The saint’s argumentation in both answers is similar, as well as the biblical quotations used. Probably the original question was expressed somewhat unclearly, which prompted St. When answering, Kirill presents it in two versions (Wickham 1983, p. 147, note 23). γενεσιουργός (see Prem. 13, 5). The direct meaning of the speech here suggests that man was created in the image of the Son, but it must be clarified that for St. Cyril, the “image of God” in man is a reflection of the entire Holy Trinity due to the identity of the essence of the Divine hypostases. On the basis of this, in the treatise “Explanation of Dogmas,” he rejects the opinion that man is the “image of the image,” that is, the Son, who is already the “image” of the Father (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De dogmatum solutione. 4 // Wickham 1983. P. 196–198). In. 10:10. Wed: “in abundance” (Syn., Bishop Cassian). In the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” by St. By this “excess” Cyril understands the communion of the Holy Spirit, which is received only by “those justified by faith in Christ” (CyrillusAlexandrinus. In Ioannem. Lib. VI, 1 // Pusey 1872. Vol. 2. P. 219–220. Russian translation: Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Book 3. pp. 348–349). Probably the saint here means the words of the Gospel: Jesus was led (ἤγετο) by the Spirit in the wilderness (Luke 4:1). He interprets the “led” used here precisely as “spent his life” (διῆγεν). He understands this passage itself not to mean that Christ was “led away” (ἀπεφέρετο) into the desert by the Holy Spirit, but that He spent a spiritual life in the desert, not a physical one (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. In Lucam. Hom. 12 (Frgm. I, 25) // Lukas-Kommentare aus der Griechischen Kirche / Hrsg. J. Reuss. B., 1984 (TU 130; Idem. Oratio ad Pulcheriam augustas de fide 28). St. Cyril considers the “image” of God and “likeness” in the biblical story of the creation of man as identical concepts (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De dogmatum solutione. 3 // Wickham 1983. P. 192). will not find: does not have (Syn., Bishop Cassian). Ps. 10:4; Ps. 102:19; Isa.66:1. See Gen. 6:2–4. A similar interpretation of this passage by St. Cyril offers in two more of his works: “Glaphira” and “Against Julian the Apostate” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Glaphira in Pentateuchum. In Genesim. Lib. 2 // PG 69, 49C. Russian translation: Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Book 2. M., 2001. pp. 30–34; Idem. Contra Julianum imperatorem. 9 // PG 76, 943A-960A). An overview of the interpretation of this passage in the ancient Church is available, for example, in the article: Wickham 1974. S. 135–147. See also: Hagl 1986. R. 125.