Orthodox faith - the life of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Saint Cyril of Alexandria

Cyril of Alexandria. Byzantine school.

Cyril of Alexandria - hierarch, patriarch Alexandria since 412, theologian, father of the Church. Born in 378, died in 444. He was distinguished by a severe disposition and inflexibility of character. Becoming a patriarch, he began to fight against the Novatian heretics, who were expelled from his diocese. At the initiative of Cyril, the Jews were also expelled, and their property was confiscated. Tough actions of Cyril caused displeasure of the Byzantine prefect Oresta, but the Egyptian monks - supporters of the patriarch - responded to the Byzantine governor with insults, one of them even wounded him with a thrown stone. The monk Cyril, who was executed for this crime, was proclaimed a sufferer for his faith and buried with honor. Sometimes Cyril is suspected of inciting the atrocities of the Alexandrian paravolans who killed the famous learned woman. Hypatia, who was friends with the prefect Orestes. From 428 Cyril fought against heresy Nestoria, the then Patriarch of Constantinople. In 431 Cyril participated in Third Ecumenical (Ephesus) Council, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and approved the veneration of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God. He was the author of numerous polemical writings against Nestorius, in which the inseparable union of natures in Christ was affirmed, starting from the moment of His birth into the world; in these writings, the term was first introduced "hypostatic unity". Cyril of Alexandria also owns interpretations of Old Testament books, a collection of treatises on the Trinity - "Thesaurus" and an apologetic essay condemning the emperor's "Speech against Christians" Julian the Apostate .

Byzantine Dictionary: in 2 volumes / [ comp. Tot. Ed. K.A. Filatov]. St. Petersburg: Amphora. TID Amphora: RKhGA: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2011, v. 1, p. 471-472.

St. Cyril of Alexandria stood at the origins of the Christological heresy, which later received the name of monophysitism from the Greek "mia fisis" - one nature. Since Monophysitism, developing, gave rise to many dissimilar currents, it is difficult and hardly correct to characterize this doctrine unambiguously and briefly (which fully applies to both Nestorianism and Arianism). For example, according to Cyril, “the one nature of God the Word incarnate”, strictly speaking, is not the absence of human nature in Christ in general, but its diminution, a kind of absorption of the lower human nature by the higher, divine nature. Monophysites of another trend recognized in Christ the presence of a human nature, different from ours, human. Sometimes, by tracing this term, monophysitism is understood as the doctrine of the presence in Christ of only one nature - this was the case, but, by the way, the most authoritative Monophysites rejected such a simplified point of view. Perhaps the most clear line separating developed monophysitism from orthodoxy can be considered the attitude towards the IV Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon - monophysites do not recognize it. The interested reader can learn more about the essence of the problems of Christological and Trinitarian disputes, Monophysitism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism from A. V. Kartashev's book "Ecumenical Councils". M., "Republic", 1994.

Used materials of the book: Dashkov S.B. Emperors of Byzantium. M., 1997, p. 34.

Cyril of Alexandria (Κύριλλος Α΄ Αλεξανδρείας) (d. 444, Alexandria) - Greek church leader and theologian. From 412 - Archbishop of Alexandria. He was the sovereign head of the Christian Church in Egypt and an implacable fighter for the primacy of the Alexandrian Patriarchate over other episcopal sees of the East (Constantinople, Antioch). He was distinguished by extreme intolerance towards dissidents: he actively persecuted the Novatians (a heterodox Christian movement) and Jews; apparently, he was involved in the massacre of Hypatia. He relied in his activities on the masses of Egyptian monasticism. After 428, he became the main opponent of the Patriarch of Constantinople Nestorius and his Christological teachings. At the Council of Ephesus in 431, Nestorius was condemned. Ranked among the clique of saints.

Cyril is one of the most significant theologians of his time, a successor to the traditions of the Alexandrian school, the creator of the Christological doctrine, which synthesized the Christological ideas of Athanasius of Alexandria, the Cappadocians and Apollinaris of Laodicea. He is the author of a large number of works devoted to biblical exegesis, apologetics and dogmatics. Many of his works are polemical in nature. Cyril's commentaries on the books of the Old Testament are a typical example of the allegorical method cultivated within the framework of the Alexandrian school. Among the New Testament commentaries, the most important is the "Commentary of the Gospel of John" (the 4th Gospel had a certain influence on the Christology of Cyril). Cyril belongs to one of the last Christian apologies - "On the holy Christian religion against the godless Julian" (not completely preserved); on the basis of this work, it is possible to reconstruct a significant part of the treatise of the emperor Julian "Against the Galileans". The works of Cyril, devoted to dogmatic issues proper, can be divided into early (before the start of the controversy with Nestorius), devoted to ch. about. trinitarian problem and controversy with the Arians (“Treasury”, “On the Holy and Undivided Trinity”, etc.) and reproducing the argumentation of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cappadocians, and written after 428. Almost all the works of this period are connected with the controversy against Nestorius and touch on Christological issues ( “Chapters (or Anathematisms)”, “Scholias on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten”, “On the Right Faith”, “A Word Against Those Who Do Not Want to Confess the Holy Virgin as the Theotokos”, “On the One Christ”, etc.). In his Christological teaching, Cyril, in contrast to the Christology of Antioch (Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, Theodoret of Cyrus, and others), which emphasized a strict distinction between the divine and human nature of Christ, energetically insisted on his unity. Divine and human nature, according to Cyril, unites and forms a “single incarnate nature of God the Word” (...) - a formula attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria, but in fact belonged to Apollinaris of Laodicea). Human flesh, assimilated by the Divine Word, became the flesh of God himself. Therefore, Cyril refuses to attribute the human qualities and actions of Christ (including suffering and death on the cross) solely to his human nature. God Himself suffered and was crucified on the cross. Therefore, "Theotokos" is the most accurate name for the Virgin Mary (the theologians of Antioch preferred to call her the Mother of Christ). Cyril did not deny the human nature of Christ, but believed that it could not be singled out as something independent and different from his divinity.

The posthumous fate of the Christological teaching of Cyril is rather complicated. Although the Christological definition of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 largely contradicts the Christology of Cyril, the authority of his personality in the Church remained indisputable, and the influence of his Christology increased (decisions of the V Ecumenical Council of 553, the theology of Leonty of Byzantium, John of Damascus, etc.). At the same time, the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon (the Monophysites) declare themselves, first of all, the successors of the theology of Cyril (Dioscorus of Alexandria, Timothy Elur, Severus of Antioch, and others).

H. V. Shaburov

New Philosophical Encyclopedia. In four volumes. / Institute of Philosophy RAS. Scientific ed. advice: V.S. Stepin, A.A. Huseynov, G.Yu. Semigin. M., Thought, 2010, vol. II, E - M, p. 247-248.

Read further:

Patriarchs of Alexandria

Patriarchs of Constantinople (biographical guide).

Compositions:

MPG, t. 68-77; Dialogues sur la Trinite, v. 1-3, ed. G. M. de Durand. P., 1976-1978 (Sources Chretiennes, t. 231, 237, 246); Deux dialogues christologiques, ed. G. M. de Durand. P., 1964 (Sources Chretiennes, t. 97); Contre Julien, v. 1-2, ed. P. Burguiere, P. Evrieus. P, 1985 (Sources Chretiennes, t. 322); Lettres festales, v. 1-2, ed. L. Arragon etc. P., 1991-1993 (Sources Chretiennes, t. 372, 392); Creations, vols. 1-15. M., 1889-1912.

Literature:

Lyashchenko T. St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria: His life and work. K, 1913; Vishnyakov A. Emperor Julian the Apostate and controversy with him St. Cyril Archbishop of Alexandria. Simbirsk, 1908; Florovsky G. V. Byzantine Fathers of the V-VIII centuries. M., 1992, p. 43-73; Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, heresiarch of the 5th century. M., 1997; Shaburov I. V. Cyril of Alexandria and Hermeticism. - "Meroe.", 1989, no. 4, p. 220-227; Rehrmann A. Christologie des hi. Cyril von Alexandrien. Hildesheim, 1902; Hebensperger J. H. Die Denkwelt des hi. Cyrill von Alexandrien: Eine Analyze ihres philosophischen Ertrags. Munch., 1924; Du Manoir de Juaye H. Dogme et spiritualite chez Saint Cyrille d "Alexandrie. P., 1944; Kerrigan A. St. Cyril of Alexandria Interpreter of the Old Testament. Roma, 1952; Diepen H. M. Aux origines de l "antropologie de Saint Cyrille d "Alexandrie. P., 1957; Wdken R. L. Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria" s Exegesis and Theology. N. Haven-L., 1971; Malley W.H. Hellenism and Christianity: The Conflict between Hellenic and Christian Wisdom in the Contra Galilaeos of the Julian the Apostate and the Contra Julianum of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Rome, 1978.

LIFE AND CREATION

St. Cyril is one of the largest figures in the history of the Church, a brilliant theologian and hierarch, who is the main merit in overcoming the heresy of Nestorius, preparing and holding the Council of Ephesus in 431 (III Ecumenical). Christological formulations of St. Cyril formed the basis of the dogmatic creeds of this Council, but later they were used by Dioscorus and the Monophysites, who rejected the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (IV Ecumenical). The teaching of St. Cyril became a "sign to be disputed", and his outstanding personality - the subject of centuries-old disputes, renewed with renewed vigor in different eras.

St. Cyril was the nephew of Theophilus of Alexandria. He was born in Alexandria and received an excellent classical and theological education. According to Rev. Isidore Pelusiot, St. Cyril lived for some time with the monks in the desert near Pelusion (Letter 1, 25). By 403 Cyril was already a deacon; in this capacity, he accompanied his uncle to Constantinople, where he took part in the Council "Under the Oak", which condemned St. John Chrysostom. His dislike for Chrysostom remained with him for a long time: in 417, when the Archbishop of Constantinople Atticus restored the name of St. John in the diptychs, Cyril, then already the Archbishop of Alexandria, strongly condemned his act, saying that he did not consider it possible to rank among the priests “the layman John who had fallen from the priesthood” (Nikephorus Kallistos. Church. Hist. 14, 28). However, in 418 he heeded the advice of his friend, Rev. Isidore Caelusiota and entered the name of John Chrysostom in the Alexandrian diptychs, and at the Council of Ephesus in 431 referred to his writings.

After the death of Theophilus, Archdeacon Timothy was the main candidate for the See of Alexandria. However, the people preferred the nephew of the deceased to him, and on October 12, 412, St. Cyril became the archbishop of the Egyptian capital. The election of Cyril was not an accident. In IV-V centuries. in the Church of Alexandria power passed almost regularly from uncle to nephew: after St. Athanasius, his nephew Peter, who was the uncle of Theophilus, became archbishop; the latter was succeeded by his nephew Cyril, who, in turn, was the uncle of the next bishop, Dioscorus. By the time of the enthronement of Cyril, there was a long-standing confrontation between Alexandria and Constantinople: at one time, Peter of Alexandria fought against St. Gregory the Theologian and ordained Maxim the Cynic in his place; Theophilus fought with St. John Chrysostom and achieved his deposition; subsequently, Cyril will achieve the deposition of Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, and Dioscorus at the “robber council” of 449 will depose Flavian of Constantinople.

Having entered the department, Cyril immediately made it clear that he would be no less energetic in the fight against dissidents than his uncle. “Cyril was enthroned already on the third day after the death of Theophilus and entered the bishopric with more power than Theophilus ... - says the historian Socrates. - Cyril immediately locked the Novatian churches that were in Alexandria and took all their sacred utensils, and deprived their bishop Theopemptus of everything he had ”(Socrates. Church. Hist. 7, 7). Not only new to the Cyans, but also to the Jews soon got it from the bishop. The Jews of Alexandria, according to Socrates, “planned to attack the Christians at night, and in one night they sent some people to shout all over the city that the church was on fire. Hearing this, the Christians ran from all sides to save the church, while the Jews immediately attacked and killed them... With the onset of the day, this villainy was revealed. Annoyed by him, Cyril with a great crowd of people goes to the Jewish synagogues - that is how the Jews call the places of their prayer meetings - and takes away the synagogues from them, and drives them out of the city, and gives their property to the people for plunder. Thus, the Jews who had lived in the city since the time of Alexander the Great, then all and without anything left the city and scattered in different countries ”(Church. ist. 7, 13).

Orestes, the governor of Alexandria, upset by these events, considered Kirill to be their main culprit, and therefore treated him with hostility. His dislike for Cyril increased after the assassination in March 415 of Hypatia, a famous female philosopher who belonged to the Neoplatonist school and at that time headed the University of Alexandria. Some Christians are "hot-headed", suspecting that Hypatia is setting Orestes against St. Cyril, once during Great Lent they waylaid her when she was returning home, and after severe torment they killed her, and burned her body (Ibid. 7, 14-15). All these incidents are reported by Socrates Scholasticus; it should, however, be borne in mind that Socrates apparently referred to St. Cyril of heaven is biased. Whatever it was, St. Cyril personally had nothing to do with the murder of Hypatia - otherwise, his opponents during the period of the Nestorian disputes would not have failed to mention this event among other accusations against him.

A new period in the life of St. Cyril began after he entered the fight against the Nestorian heresy. Nestorius, a Syrian by nationality and a representative of the Antiochian trend of thought, who became Patriarch of Constantinople in 428, taught that God the Word, one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, dwelt in the man Jesus, so that Jesus became the “God-bearer.” Mary, he said, did not give birth to God, but to a man, therefore She should not be called the Mother of God, but the Mother of Christ. St. Cyril first spoke out against this heresy in the spring of 429 in his Paschal epistle to the Alexandrian flock. A little later, he wrote the District Epistle to the Egyptian monks, in which he defended the Orthodox teaching. Then he sent three treatises to the emperor and members of his family, in which he did not call Nestorius by name, but refuted his teaching. The conflict between the two largest theological centers of the East, which was mixed with political and personal factors (the long-standing rivalry between Alexandria and Constantinople, as well as the mutual antipathy of Cyril and Nestorius), quickly gained momentum. An exchange of messages followed between two hierarchs: St. Cyril pointed out the fallacy of Nestorius' opinions and refuted them in detail, hoping to prevent a "universal scandal"; Nestorius was brief in his replies and preferred not to get into theological disputes.

Emperor Theodosius II, remembering the quarrel between St. Cyril and Orestes, and also because of his friendship with Nestorius, he reacted to the letters of St. Cyril with distrust: he got the impression that Cyril wanted to sow enmity not only between the Alexandrians and the inhabitants of the capital, but also within the imperial palace, since he wrote separately to him, separately to his wife and sisters. In a reply message to Cyril, the emperor called him the cause of the indignation in the Church. At the same time, Rev. Isidore Pelusiot wrote to Cyril advising him not to deepen the conflict (Letter 1, 370). However, St. Cyril, realizing the importance of the dispute that had arisen, addressed a message to Pope Celestine, calling him "the most reverend and God-loving father" and referring to the "old custom of churches" to appeal to the Roman Pontiff regarding controversial issues. Nestorius also wrote to the pope, sending him a collection of his sermons. By order of the Pope, Rev. John Cassian the Roman examined the teachings of Nestorius and refuted them as heretical in his Seven Books on the Incarnation of Christ. In August 430, the pope convened a council in Rome, at which he condemned Nestorius and justified the theology of St. Kirill. The Pope authorized Cyril to inform Nestorius of this decision: “So, you, having assumed the proper authority and stepped in our place with the authority assumed by him ... pronounce an anathema on him (Nestorius) ”(see the letters of St. Cyril and Pope Celestine in the“ Acts of the III Ecumenical Council ”).

In October 430, St. Cyril, having secured the written support of the Bishop of Rome, convened a Council in Alexandria, drew up 12 anathematisms against the new heresy and sent them to Nestorius along with a letter from the pope, threatening him with deposition and excommunication from the Church if Nestorius did not admit his mistakes within ten days. At one time St. Cyril wrote to John of Antioch and Akakios of Beroea. When Nestorius received Cyril's anathematisms on November 30 of the same year, he not only did not want to sign them, but, seeing Apollinarian and Arian opinions in them, he composed 12 anathematisms in response. In his sermon on December 6, Nestorius complained about the persecution brought against him by "a certain Egyptian", and identified his case with the story of John Chrysostom, who also suffered an unjust attack from the "Egyptian Pharaoh" - the uncle of Nestorius' current opponent. John of Antioch, having received the message of Cyril, instructed Andrew of Samosata to consider it and bl. Theodoret of Cyrus - both of them gave a negative response to the anathematisms of Cyril (Blessed Theodoret, following the example of Nestorius, compiled his counter-anathematisms against Cyril). St. Cyril was accused of aiollinarianism, not without some grounds: later the Council of Chalcedon in 451 would renounce his formula “the one nature of God the Word incarnate”, which he considered the formula of St. Cyril. Athanasius, while in reality it belonged to Apollinaris of Laodicea.
After all this, the attempts of the emperor Theodosius, as well as Akakios of Veria, John of Antioch and St. Isidore Pelusiota to reconcile Cyril with Nestorius were doomed to failure. On the side of St. Cyril were the bishops of Rome, Egypt, Palestine and Asia Minor, while the supporters of Nestorius were the bishops of Constantinople and Syria. Nestorius convinced the emperor to convene an Ecumenical Council. The emperor appointed the opening of the Council for Pentecost 431; Ephesus was chosen as the venue. In the spring of 431, St. Cyril carefully prepared for the Council and arrived in Ephesus five days before the expected date of its opening, accompanied by almost 50 bishops and a large number of monks. Nestorius arrived shortly before St. Cyril with only ten bishops. Ephesian Bishop Memnon immediately took the side of St. Cyril, forbidding Nestorius and his supporters to serve in city churches. The imperial committee Candidian, a representative of state power, on the contrary, was on the side of Nestorius.

On June 7, 431, the opening of the Cathedral was to take place. However, St. Cyril received a letter from John of Antioch, who reported that he was not in time for the opening, and asked to postpone the start of the Council for five or six days. After waiting for almost two weeks, Cyril and Memnon with their supporters on June 22 came to the cathedral church of Ephesus to open the Council. Candidian protested and, having read the imperial decree on the convocation of the Council, withdrew. 68 bishops who did not want to start the Council without John of Antioch were expelled. Cyril and Memnon began the Council with 157 bishops and one deacon. Cyril, as a representative of the pope, took the chair. Nestorius, who had received an invitation the day before, did not appear at the Council. Since almost all the participants in the Council were like-minded Cyril, he managed to finish the job within one day: the messages of Cyril and Nestorius were read, the message of Pope Celestine, fragments from the works of the fathers, witnesses were also heard, after which Nestorius was deprived of the episcopal dignity and excommunicated from the Church. 198 fathers signed the definition. In the evening, the verdict was sent to Nestorius, the "new Judas", and announced to the people. The Fathers of the Cathedral staged a solemn torchlight procession through the city.
Nestorius, having received a conciliar decision, complained to the emperor. Candidian also declared the decision of the Council illegal and wrote to the palace. Meanwhile, on June 26, John of Antioch arrived in Ephesus with 34 bishops. Learning that the matter had been decided without him, and offended by this, John of Antioch composed a Council with the participation of the bishops of his diocese, at which he deposed Cyril and Memnon. A few days later, the legates of the pope arrived in Ephesus, and on June 10, St. Cyril resumed the meetings of the Council with their participation. At subsequent meetings, the legates confirmed the condemnation of Nestorius; John of Atioch was also summoned for explanations - he, of course, did not appear, and, like Nestorius, he was deposed in absentia.

In the first days of August, the imperial committee John arrived in Ephesus, who ordered that all the bishops should come to him. At the appearance of Nestorius, the excitement among the bishops was so great that the committee removed both him and Cyril from the hall. After that, he read out the imperial decree on the deposition of the main participants in the conflict - Nestorius, Cyril and Memnon. All three were arrested. In this situation, Nestorius realized that his case was lost. Shortly after his arrest, he announced his desire to retire to the monastery of St. Euprepius near Antioch, after which he was honorably discharged. Nestorius settled in this monastery, where he lived until 435, when he was transferred by decree of the emperor, first to Arabia, and then to Egypt. He died in the middle of the fifth century. Maximilian, a supporter of the Council of Ephesus and a friend of Pope Celestine, was appointed his successor.
Shortly after the first decree on the deposition of Nestorius, Cyril and Memnon, the emperor Theodosius sent another decree to Ephesus, which commanded all the participants in the Council, including Cyril and Memnon, to disperse to their dioceses. Thus, he, as it were, canceled the deposition of the Bishops of Alexandria and Ephesus. St. Cyril, having been released from custody, went to Alexandria and on October 30 was greeted with great joy by his flock.
Although the Council ended, peace in the Church was not restored. On the contrary, the Council caused a split: Nestorius found support in Syria, where a community of people loyal to him was formed. A rift also arose between Alexandria and Antioch. John of Antioch returned to his diocese without signing the condemnation of Nestorius and without reversing his deposition of Cyril. There was no ecclesiastical communion between Egypt and Syria until 433, when St. Cyril signed the "agreement" proposed by the Antiochians, and John of Antioch recognized the condemnation of Nestorius. Only then St. Cyril was able to inform Pope Sixtus III about the restoration of peace. However, after the “agreement”, the extreme Alexandrians accused St. Cyril of apostasy from the decisions of the Council of Ephesus - the extreme Antiochians, on the contrary, accused John of Antioch of betrayal. St. Cyril until the end of his days was forced to explain his position in writing. He also had to contend with his opponents, among whom were such prominent anti-Ochians as Theodore of Mopsuestia and bl. Theodoret of Kirsky. St. Cyril died on June 27, 444.

CREATIONS

exegetical

Despite the fact that St. Cyril had to write a lot against his enemies, the main part of his legacy is not polemical, but exegetical treatises. St. Cyril was a brilliant commentator on the Bible and followed the allegorical method in his interpretations, which puts him on a par with Origen and other Alexandrians. However, unlike Origen, he considered not all the details of the Old Testament history to be of spiritual significance. He paid little attention to the historical and philological analysis of the text, but in his interpretations there is always a controversy with heretics.

17 books On Worship and Service in Spirit and Truth, written in the form of dialogues between St. Cyril and Palladius, are an allegorical explanation of individual places of the Pentateuch, chosen not in the order in which they are in the Bible, but in the one that is most convenient for the author to confirm his main idea. St. Cyril proves that the letter of the law has been abolished, but the spirit has not, and therefore the interpretation of the Old Testament texts should not be literal, but allegory. In the 1st book of St. Cyril speaks of the deliverance of man from slavery to sin and the devil, in the 2nd and 3rd - about justification through Christ, in 4-5 - about the human will, in 6-8 - about love for God and neighbor, in 9-13 - on the Church and the priesthood, in 14-16 - on the spiritual worship of Christians, and on the 17th - on Jewish holidays, especially Easter. The treatise was written after the episcopal consecration of St. Cyril, but before the start of the anti-Nestorian controversy (412-429).

13 books of Skillful Interpretations (“Glafira”) were written in the same period of the life of the saint and also contain an explanation of selected passages from the Pentateuch, however, in the order they are found in the Bible. In book. 1-7 discusses Genesis, 8-10 Exodus, 11 Leviticus, 12 Numbers, 13 Deuteronomy.

The interpretation of the prophet Isaiah was written, most likely, after the exegetical works on the Pentateuch, but before 429 and consists of five books. St. Cyril offers the reader a "double" interpretation, including "history", that is, the literal meaning of the text, and "theory" - its allegorical explanation.

The interpretation of the twelve prophets consists of 12 parts, divided into volumes. After an extensive introduction in which St. Cyril points to previous exegetes, his own interpretation follows, and each book is preceded by its own preface.

In the Catenas on the Old Testament, fragments from other interpretations of St. Cyril: on the books of Kings, Psalms and Bible songs, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. Fragments of the interpretation of St. Cyril on Ezekiel are preserved in an Armenian manuscript kept at Oxford University (Bodleian Library). About the comments of St. Cyril is mentioned in psalms by Patriarch Photius (Library, No. 229). There are references in the literature to other biblical works of St. Cyril, which have not reached us.
From the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew written by St. Cyril scrap after 428, only a few fragments survive. This interpretation was known to Leontius of Byzantium, Ephraim of Antioch and Facundus of Hermia.

The collection of Discourses on Luke the Evangelist has been preserved in the Syriac version of the 6th-7th centuries. , which includes 156 conversations, while in Greek only three conversations and some fragments have survived. The discourses contain a pronounced anti-Nestorian controversy, and reference to anathematisms shows that these discourses were delivered around 430 BC.

Of the 12 books of Interpretations on John the Evangelist, 10 books (1-6, 9 - 12) have been preserved in their entirety, and two (7 and 8) - in fragments, the authenticity of which is doubtful. Commentary of St. Cyril is dogmatic-polemical in nature, as the author points out in the introduction. St. Cyril finds in the Gospel of John evidence of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, refuting the teachings of the Arians and Eunomians, as well as the Christology of the Antiochian school. The name Nestorius, as well as the term "Mother of God" are missing in the interpretation, so it is assumed that it was compiled before 429.

Dogmatic-polemical and apologetic

The early dogmatic-polemical works of St. Cyril directed against the Arians. Treatise Treasure, on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, was written presumably at the beginning of the bishopric of St. Cyril, no later than 425. The treatise consists of 35 chapters. In triadology, St. Cyril follows his predecessor, St. Athanasius. Part of the treatise is a reproduction of the 3rd book of St. Athanasius "Against the Arians". As one of the sources of St. Cyril uses the book of Didymus "Against Eunomius".

Treatise on the Holy and Life-Giving Trinity written shortly after The Treasure and is a revision of the latter. The treatise is dedicated to the "brother" Nemesius and consists of seven dialogues between the author and his friend Hermias: in six dialogues it is about the Son, in the seventh - about the Holy Spirit.
The first anti-Nestorian treatise, Five Books Against Nestorius, was written around 430. It is a critical analysis of a collection of sermons published by Nestorius the previous year. The name of Nestorius is not mentioned in the text, but quotes from his works are given. In the first book of St. Cyril analyzes the places in which Nestorius speaks out against calling Mary the Mother of God; four other books deal with the two natures of Christ.

Treatise on Right Faith written in 430, consists of three letters sent to St. Cyril to the imperial palace about the Nestorian heresy. The first is addressed to Tsar Theodosius, the other two - to the queens (without giving names). According to John of Caesarea (6th century), the second epistle is addressed to the younger sisters of the emperor - Arcadia and Marina, and the third - to the elder sister Pulcheria and the wife of the emperor Eudoxia.

Twelve anathematisms against Nestorius were written in the same year 430 on behalf of the Council in Alexandria (see above).
St. Cyril was forced to defend his anathematisms in three apologies. The first is called the Defense of the Twelve Chapters against the Bishops of the East and is directed against Andrew of Samosata, who accused St. Cyril in Apollinarianism and Monophysitism. From the accusations of Theodoret of Cyrus, St. Cyril defends himself in a Letter to Euoptius, Bishop of Ptolemand of Libya, from whom he received the text of Theodoret's work against anathematism. Both treatises were written before the Third Ecumenical Council. The third treatise in defense of anathematism, entitled An Explanation of the Twelve Chapters, was written in the Ephesian prison, where St. Cyril was in August - September 431 after the III Ecumenical Council.

The protective word to Tsar Theodosius was written by St. Cyril immediately after his return from Ephesus to Alexandria. In the Word he defends his actions before and during the Council of Ephesus.

The scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten were written after 431: in them St. Cyril gives an explanation of the names Christ, Emmanuel and Jesus, after which he defends the hypostatic unity of natures, refuting the opinions about "mixing" and "connection" between them. The full text has been preserved in Latin, Syriac and Armenian versions; of the Greek original, only a fraction has survived.

In the dialogue That Christ is One, St. Cyril refutes the teaching that the Word of God did not become flesh, but united with the man Jesus, so that the honor of the First does not belong to the Second. St. Cyril refers to his early controversy with Nestorius and demonstrates such a maturity of thought that the dialogue, highly valued in antiquity, seems to be one of the later works of St. Cyril. Kirill.

A small book against those who do not want to recognize the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God continues the anti-Nestorian polemic. This treatise, as a genuine work of St. Cyril in 542 was referred to by the emperor Justinian in his “Sermon against the Monophysites”.

In his treatise Against Diodorus and Theodore, St. Cyril refutes the doctrine of the teachers of Nestorius - Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore Mop of Suestia. The treatise consists of three books: the 1st is dedicated to Diodorus, the 2nd and 3rd - to Theodore. The treatise was written around 438. Fragments have been preserved in Greek and Latin versions. Also preserved in fragments is a treatise Against the Anthropomorphites.

The treatise Against the Sinusiasts, i.e., against the extreme Apollinarians (“sinusia” - the coexistence of two natures) was written in the late period of the life of the saint and has been preserved in fragments in Greek and Syriac.

Monumental apologetic writing On the Holy Religion of the Christian against the Godless Julian written in the period between 433 and 441, i.e. after reconciliation with John of Antioch, but before the death of the latter, since from the 83rd letter of bl. Theodoret makes it clear that St. Cyril sent this essay to John. It is dedicated to Emperor Theodosius II and contains a refutation of the treatises of Julian the Apostate Against the Galileans. Julian in 363 published three treatises under this title. Foreword by St. Cyril shows that paganism in his time was still strong and Julian's treatises with accusations against Christians were popular. Only the first ten books of St. Cyril, where he analyzes the 1st treatise of Julian and talks about the connections between Christianity, Judaism and paganism. Fragments from books 11 and 20, which have come down in Greek and Syriac versions, show that books 11-20 dealt with the second treatise of Julian. J. Newman suggests that in subsequent books of St. Cyril refuted the 3rd treatise of Julian and in total there were about 30 books in his work. However, nothing has survived from the alleged books 21-30: it is possible that St. Cyril did not mean to refute all of Julian's treatises, but limited himself to only the first two (Quasten J., p. 129-130).

Easter messages

Like their predecessors - ev. Athanasius, Peter and Theophilus of Alexandria, St. Cyril annually addressed his flock with a message regarding the date of the celebration of Easter. The publishers of the writings of St. Cyril collected 29 messages under the general title Easter conversations. They were written between 414 and 442. and are devoted primarily to moral and ascetic themes: fasting and abstinence, vigil and prayer, works of charity and mercy. Dogmatic questions are also discussed: in Conversations 5, 8, 17 and 27 St. Cyril defends the doctrine of the Incarnation against the Arians and other heretics who deny the eternity of the Son; Conversation 12 speaks of the Holy Trinity. Many conversations contain polemics with Jews and Gentiles.

Conversations

From the sermons delivered by St. Cyril during his episcopal ministry in Alexandria, no more than 22 have survived, some of which have survived in fragments. The publishers called them Other Discourses as opposed to Easter Discourses (messages). The first eight talks were delivered in Ephesus during the work of the III Ecumenical Council. Of these, the 1st was pronounced at the beginning of the work of the Council, the 2nd - on the feast day of the Apostle John the Theologian, the 5th - after the condemnation of Nestorius, the 6th - after the break with John of Antioch, the 7th - before the arrest. The 4th discourse, Laudable to St. Mary the Theotokos, delivered between June 23 and 27, 431 in the church of the Most Holy Theotokos in Ephesus, is the most famous sermon in antiquity dedicated to the Most Holy Virgin Mary: St. Cyril calls Her "the inextinguishable lamp", "the crown of virginity", "the scepter of Orthodoxy", "the indestructible temple", "the receptacle of the Incontainable" - some of these expressions subsequently entered the Akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos. Conversations 3, 15, 16 and 20 deal with the Incarnation of the Son of God. Discourse 10, On the Last Supper, probably belongs to Theophilus of Alexandria; The 11th is nothing more than the 4th conversation, expanded and supplemented in the 7th-9th centuries. The 13th, In the Week of Vai, goes back to Eulogy of Alexandria. The famous 14th discourse, On the Exodus of the Soul from the Body and on the Second Coming of Christ, which was especially popular in the Middle Ages (it was placed in the Slavic Followed Psalter), is a work of dubious authenticity: in the Apophtegmas of the Fathers it is mentioned as the work of Theophilus of Alexandria. The 8th Conversation, On the Transfiguration of the Lord, and the 12th, On the Presentation of the Lord, belong to the corpus of Conversations on the Gospel of Luke (see above).

Letters

Collection of letters from St. Cyril, printed in Min's Patrology, includes 88 letters, of which 17 are letters from others addressed to him, and some are forged. Most of the letters of St. Cyril date from the time after the Council of Ephesus. For the history of relations between East and West, the correspondence of St. Cyril with Popes Celestine and Sixtus. To the letters of St. Cyril was subsequently referred to by the Ecumenical Councils: letter 4, the second to Nestorius, was read out at the III, IV and V Ecumenical Councils. Letter 17, the third to Nestorius, contains a description of the acts of the Council of Alexandria in 430. In letter 39, to John of Antioch, St. Cyril expresses joy at the reconciliation that took place: it begins with the words "Let the heavens rejoice." The three indicated letters (4, 17, 39), due to their dogmatic significance, received the name "ecumenical". Letter 76 contains the refusal of St. Cyril to enter the name of John Chrysostom in the diptychs. Letter 80, Hypatia to Cyril, is forged, as well as 86 - Cyril to Pope Leonty.

Liturgy of St. Cyril of Alexandria

in the name of St. Cyril is one of the liturgies used in the Coptic Church. The Greek text of this liturgy is unknown, and since St. Cyril did not write in Coptic; its belonging to this saint is excluded. The liturgy consists of an anaphora, similar in content to the so-called anaphora of the Apostle Mark. It has been suggested that the Coptic Liturgy of St. Cyril is nothing but the Coptic version of the anaphora of the Apostle Mark. But the question of the origin of the liturgy of St. Cyril of Alexandria has not been fully studied (see: Archim. Cyprian Kern. The Eucharist. Paris. S. 99 - 100).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Creations, original text
Migne, P.G. -T. 68-77.
Mai A. Nova Patrum Bibliotheca. - Vol. 2 - 3. Roma, 1844 -1845.
Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini opera omnia (P. E. Pusey). - Vol. 1-7. - Oxford, 1868-1877.
Schr. : Cyrilled "Alexandrie. Contre Julien, I-II. - T. 322. - Paris, 1985. - Deux dialogues christologiques. - T. 97. - Paris, 1964. - Dialogues sur la Trinite. - T. 231, 237, 246. - Paris, 1976-1978. - Lettres festales, I-VI. - T. 372. - Paris, 1991. - Lettres festales, VII-XI. - T. 392. - Paris, 1993.
Creations, Russian translation
Creations like in the saints of our father Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. - Ch. 1-15. - M., 1880-1912.
St. Cyril of Alexandria. A word about the exodus of the soul and the Last Judgment. - M., 1864. - The same. Ed. 2nd. - St. Petersburg. , 1868. - The same. Ed. 11th. - M., 1901.
St. Cyril of Alexandria. 1. A word against those who do not want to confess the Holy Virgin Mary. 2. A conversation with Nestorius about the fact that the Holy Virgin is the Theotokos, and not the Mother of Christ. (translated by priest V. Dmitriev). - Sergiev Posad, 1915.
Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, published in Russian translation at the Kazan Theological Academy. - Ch. 1-2. - Kazan, 1859-1861. - Too. - Ed. 5, reprint. - St. Petersburg. , 1996.
Literature
Vishnyakov V. Emperor Julian the Apostate and literary controversy with him St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. - Simbirsk, 1908.
Lyashchenko Timofey, priest. The meaning of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, in the history of Christian theology. // Kiev-Mohyla collection, XXV.
Lyashchenko Timofey, priest. St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria: his life and work. - Kyiv, 1913.
Nazarenko T., priest. Saint Cyril of Alexandria and his theological views. - Zagorsk, 1971.
On the Life and Works of Saint Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. // Creations of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. - M., 1880. - E. 47. - S. 1-7.
Ponomarev P. Teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Eucharist. // Orthodox interlocutor. - Kazan, 1904.
Porfiry (Popov), hieromonk. Saint Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. // Additions to the works of the Holy Fathers. - M., 1854.- Ch. 13. - S. 250-322.
Pravdolyubov Mikhail, priest. Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria from his Homilies. - Sergiev Posad, 1992.
Saint Cyril of Alexandria as a denouncer of Old Believer delusions. /Comp. Priest Dmitry Alexandrov. - St. Petersburg. , 1907.
Bardy G. Cyrille d "Alexandrie. // Dictionnaire d" histoire et de geographie ecclesiastique. - Paris, 1956. - T. 13. - P. 1169-1177.
Bermejo A. M. The Indwelling of the Trinity according to Saint Cyril of Alexandria. - Ona, 1963.
Burghardt W. J. The Image of God in Man according to Cyril of Alexandria. -
Washington, 1957. Diepen H. J. M. Aux origines de l "antropologie de saint Cyrille d" Alexandrie. -
Bruges, 1957. Dratsellas C. Questions of the Soteriological Teaching of the Greek Fathers with
Special Reference to St. Cyril of Alexandria. - Athens, 1968. Dries J., van den. The Formula of St. Cyril of Alexandria - Roma, 1939. Dupre la Tour A. Doxa dans les commentaires exegetiques de Cyrille d "Alexandrie. Roma, 1958.
Eberle A. Die Mariologie des hl. Cyrillus von Alexandrien. - Freiburg, 1921. Fraigneau-Julien B. L "inhabitation de la saint Trinite dans l" ame selon Cyrille
d "Alexandrie. // Recherches de science religieuse. - Paris, 1956. - T. 30. -
P. 135-156. Hebensberger J. N. Die Denkwelt des hl. Cyril von Alexandrien. - Munchen, 1924.
Hespel R. Le florilege Cyrillien refute par Severe d "Antioche. - Louvain, 1955. Houdek F. J. Contemplation in the Life and Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. -
Los Angeles, 1979. Imnof P., Lorenz B. Maria Theotokos bei Cyrill von Alexandrien. - Munchen,
1981. Kerrigan A. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Interpreter of the Old Testament. - Roma,
1952. KopallikJ. Cyrillus von Alexandrien, eine Biographie nach den Quellen gearbeitet-Mainz, 1881. Liebaert J. La doctrine christologique de saint Cyrille d "Alexandrie avant le querelle nestorienne. - Lille, 1951.
Liebaert J. L "incarnation J. Les origines au concile de Chalcedoine. - Paris, 1966. Make J. Cyrille d" Alexandrie. // Dictionnaire de theologie catholique. -Paris,
1908. - T. 3. - P. 2476-2527. Malley W. J. Hellenism and Christianity. The Conflict between Hellenic and
Christian Wisdom in the Contra Galilaeos of Julian the Apostate and the
Contra Julianum of St. Cyril of Alexandria. - Roma, 1978. Memoir H. du. Cyrille d "Alexandrie. // Dictionnaire de spiritualite. - Paris, 1953. -1. 2. -P. 2672-2683.
Memoir H.du. Dogme et spiritualite chez saint Cyrille d "Alexandrie. - Paris, 1944. Manoir H. du. L" Eglise corps du Christ chez saint Cyrille d "Alexandrie. //
Gregorianum. - Roma, 1939. - T. 19. - P. 37-63.83-100.161-188. Rehrmann A. Die Christologie des hl. Cyrillus von Alexandrien. - Hildesheim,
1902. Renaudin P. La theologie de saint Cyrille d "Alexandrie d" apres Saint Thomas
d "Aquin. - Tongerloo, 1937. Rucker I. Cyrill und Nestorius im Lichte des Ephesus-Enziklika. - Oxenbronn,
1934. Rucker I. Das Dogma von der Personlichkeit Christi und das Problem der Haeresie.
- Oxenbronn, 1934. Sauer L. Die Exegese des Cyrill von Alexandrien nach seinem Kommentar zum
Johannes Evangelium. - Freiburg im B., 1965. Schwartz E. Cyrill und der Monch Viktor. - Wien, 1928. Sellers R. V. Two Ancient Christologies. - London, 1940. - P. 80-106. Struckmann A. Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Cyril von Alexandrien. - Paderborn, 1910.
Weigl E. Die Heilslehre des hl. Cyril von Alexandrien. - Mainz, 1905. Wilken R. L. Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria "s
Exegesis and Theology. - New Haven-Yale, 1971.

06/9/1427(06/22). - Rev. reposed. Cyril, abbot of Beloezersky. Memory of St. Cyril of Alexandria

Kirill's day

On this day, the Orthodox Church honors the memory of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria (+ 444) and St. Cyril Abbot of Beloezersky (+ 1427).

Born in Alexandria, in a family of noble and pious Christians. He received a good upbringing and education. In his youth, he labored in the skete of St. Macarius the Great, then consecrated, under Patriarch Theophilus, to the deacons of the Church of Alexandria. Upon the death of Theophilus, he was elected Patriarch of Alexandria and led the fight against the heresy of Novatian, who taught that Christians who had fallen away during persecution could not be received into communion by the Church.

More dangerous for the Church were the very numerous Jews in Alexandria, who repeatedly made indignations, accompanied by brutal murders of Christians. The Jews owned a lot of money and maintained their own armed units. Saint Cyril is famous for saying that "Jews are visible demons". The saint had to fight this evil for a long time and in 415 drove them out of Alexandria. In order to put an end to the remnants of paganism, the saint cast out demons from an ancient pagan temple and built a temple in that place.

His zeal for the purity of Christian teaching and uncompromising firmness in defending the faith were especially revealed in the fight against Nestorius, who angered the Church with his heresy, that the Mother of God gave birth not to God, but to the man Christ, and called Her the Mother of Christ. Emperor Theodosius the Younger, Pope Celestine I and various monasteries, refuting the opinions of Nestorius and expounding the true Christian doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God. However, Nestorius began an open persecution of the Orthodox. In his presence, one of his adherents, Bishop Dorotheos, from the church pulpit proclaimed an anathema to those who call the Blessed Virgin Mary the Theotokos. The situation became so aggravated that it became necessary to convene an Ecumenical Council, which opened in 431 in the city of Ephesus. 200 bishops from all Christian Churches arrived at the Council. The Patriarch of Alexandria, St. Cyril presided. Having considered the teachings of Nestorius, the Council condemned him as a heresy.

For 32 years he ruled the Alexandria Church of St. Cyril died in 444. He left behind many theological works of deep content. Of particular note are the Commentaries on the Gospels of Luke, from, on the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Hebrews, as well as an apology in defense of Christianity against the emperor Julian the Apostate (361-363). Of great importance are the five books against Nestorius, the work on the Most Holy Trinity, entitled "Treasure", written against Arius and Eunomius, and two dogmatic works on the Most Holy Trinity, which are distinguished by the accuracy of the presentation of the Orthodox teaching on the Descent of the Holy Spirit. The essay against anthropomorphism was written by St. Cyril for some Egyptians, who unknowingly represented God in human form. Among the works of St. Cyril there are also "Conversations", among which the "Word on the Exodus of the Soul", placed in the Slavic "Investigated Psalter", is especially touching and instructive.

Rev. Kirill Belozersky was born in Moscow, was a noble family. Left an orphan, he lived with his uncle, the boyar Timofey Velyaminov, who was courtier at court. Once, St. John came to the boyar's house. Stefan Makhrishchsky, who foresaw the future monk-ascetic in the young man. He persuaded the boyar Timofey to let his nephew go to the monastery. The young man entered the Moscow Simonov Monastery, ruled by Archimandrite Theodore, a nephew. Sergius himself sometimes came here, but to the surprise of the brethren, he did not talk with the archimandrite, but with a modest novice, sitting with him in the kitchen or bakery, where he worked.

In 1390, Archimandrite Theodore was elevated to the rank of bishop, and st. Kirill. However, dreaming of solitude, he prayed to the Mother of God to show him the place where he would find what he needed. During the prayer, the Most Pure One appeared to him and said: "Go to Beloozero." He went there with the monk Ferapont, cleared the place, dug dugouts and began to live, fasting and praying. Soon more monks came to them from the Simonov Monastery.

In 1397 Saint Kirill built a church here in honor of the Dormition of the Mother of God. The monastery began to be founded. Cyril introduced a strict charter in it, according to which the monks did not have anything personal, and in the cell, apart from icons and books, they could not keep anything. He himself worked on an equal footing with everyone else and acquired such high spiritual qualities that the Lord vouchsafed him the gifts of clairvoyance and miracle-working. When one dying monk did not have time to take communion before his death, he resurrected him, gave him communion, and only then he quietly departed to the Lord. According to his prayers, bread did not run out in the granary of the monastery during the famine. Saint Kirill died on June 9, 1427.

The Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery produced many remarkable ascetics. Of these, the most prominent was the founder of the skete life in Russia (his memory is May 7), and St. Cornelius (his memory is May 19), who in his Komel monastery introduced the charter of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery and was the true successor in spirit of St. Sergius of Radonezh and St. Kirill Belozersky and the successor of their precepts. Rev. Savvaty of Solovetsky (comm. 27 September) also began his monastic life in the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. The monastic library of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, rich in ancient manuscripts and books (up to 2 thousand), which by no means have all been published, was a real treasure trove for theologians and scholars of antiquity.

People say: On Kiril - the end of spring, the beginning of summer. On Cyril, the sun gives the earth all its strength. In June, the day does not fade. On Kirila, it's time to mow and dry hay.

"Our castles are monasteries"
From a trip to the Kirillov Monastery

Cyril was 60 years old when he came to this wild and deserted place and undertook the foundation of the monastery. Thirty years of monastic life, apparently, brought up in him a willpower, ready for more difficult feats. Fasting did not exhaust his body, but by abstinence accustomed him to all possible hardships. At the very age when others finish their career, he, cheerful in spirit and body, is just beginning a new spiritual enlightenment of the wild country.

At the place where Cyril settled, there was a huge forest and a thicket. Nobody. The place is small but beautiful; everywhere, like a wall, surrounded by waters.

The saint began his labors in an underground cell. Two Christians from the surrounding areas: Auxentius Raven and Matthias Kikos, who later served as sexton of the monastery, come to the saint and help him. His struggle with the devil and with the obstacles of nature begins...

Here came to him two monks from Simonov, his friends and like-minded people, Zavedey and Dionysius. Cyril rejoiced at them. They began to live together. Others began to follow them and ask Cyril for tonsure.

But now, when the brethren gathered near Cyril, one thought inspired everyone: how to build a church for the sake of the general meeting. Everyone is praying for Cyril. How to be? The place is far from human dwellings; no carpenters. Cyril runs with a prayer to the Mother of God. The carpenters, called by no one, come - and a church is set up in the name of the Assumption ...

The fame of Blessed Cyril spread everywhere. His name was pronounced sacred by everyone. Fingers were pointed to him for his virtue. Some praised his humility, others praised his temperance, those praised the benefit of his words, others praised his poverty and simplicity.

The charter of blessed Cyril was as follows. In the church, no one was allowed to talk with another or leave the church before the end of the service. By seniority, the brethren approached to venerate the Gospel and icons. The blessed one himself, standing in church, never leaned against the wall, never sat down at the wrong time. His feet were like pillars. They also went to the meal according to fear. During the meal, only the voice of the reader was heard, with general silence. There were three meals for the brethren. Cyril himself ate only two - and even then not to satiety. There was no other drink but water. It was forbidden to bring honey and any drunken drink into the monastery. Cyril extended this prohibition even for a time after his death. After leaving the meal, no one dared to go to another, except for a great need. Cyril once reproached his disciple, Martinian, for this attempt. If anyone received a letter or a commemoration in the monastery, he should have brought the unopened letter to Cyril, as well as the commemoration. So it was impossible to write letters from the monastery without his permission. Nothing in the cell could be owned or called one's own, but everything was in common. Silver and gold could only belong to the monastic treasury, from which the brethren received everything. If anyone felt thirsty, he had to go to the meal to quench it. Water was allowed to be kept in the cell only for washing hands. Anyone who happened to enter the cell should not see anything from the monk, except for an icon or a book. There was only one competition allowed - to come to God's church before others. They spoke to each other only from the Scriptures. Everyone kept his wisdom silently to himself. They were engaged in needlework - all for the monastery treasury, but no one dared to do anything for themselves. Clothes, shoes, everything you need received from the monastery. Cyril himself ... after the matins went to the kitchen and helped the servants with his own hands, only to serve the brethren.

In those times, when Russian people did not yet delve into the peculiarities of their life and history, we regretted that we did not have German castles and romantic legends associated with them, and were ready to build even castles in the air, if only to populate them with our own people. dreams, and not the actual life of the Russian people.

We, from our ancient period, are left with monuments of a different kind, whose significance is determined by the religious character of life itself. Our castles are monasteries, where the personal strength of the chosen men did not develop arbitrarily, but, on the contrary, in prayer, fasting, poverty, humility, submitted to the power of God and, by her example, taught this submission to both the authorities and the people. Hermits, in sheepskin coats, in thin robes, the owners of these castles - and the owners are eternal, because the flow of time could not take away this possession from those who thought not about the temporal, but about the eternal. The servants of God, the creators of these spiritual strongholds, remained unquestioning in them neither to people nor to time. This stronghold began from a dugout, from a wooden cell, from a timber church; shed light of piety, prayer, faith, love on the whole distant neighborhood; she fed the hungry, healed the sick, received the strange, ransomed the captives; established meekness in morals; served as a spiritual bulwark against paganism and wickedness.

State power, on this spiritual basis, erected strongholds for internal and external security. The spiritual stronghold turned into a state fortress. Huge walls and towers arose, equipped with all military ammunition. The stronghold of faith served as a stronghold for the fatherland. So, . The monastery of Cyril Belozersky was exactly the same for the northern limits of Russia, for the countries of Belozersky and Novgorod. The same is, even to the north, the monastery of Solovetskaya.

S.P. Shevyrev

1. Very little reliable information is known about the life of St. Cyril before his accession to the Alexandrian see. He apparently came from a respected Alexandrian family and was the nephew of Archbishop Theophilus. He was probably born in the late 70s of the 4th century. Judging by the works of St. Cyril, he received a broad and complete education. He appears to be a good scholar of the Scriptures. He began his literary activity with experiments in allegorical interpretation in the field of the Old Testament. According to later and not very reliable news, Saint Cyril spent several years in seclusion in the desert. In 403, he accompanied Theophilus to the famous cathedral "under the oak," gathered against Chrysostom, and at that time he was already in the clergy. In 412, after the death of Theophilus, Cyril ascended the throne of Alexandria. At the same time, there was "popular confusion" and the intervention of military force was required.

2. Little is known about the first years of the bishopric of St. Cyril, before the beginning of the Nestorian controversy. Non-peaceful relations were immediately established between the archbishop and the Alexandrian prefect Orestes. According to the historian Socrates, "Orestes rejected the friendship of the bishop," - "he hated the dominion of the bishops, because they took away a lot of power from the chiefs appointed by the king." The Nitrian monks intervened in the disagreements between the bishop and the prefect, and they intervened very unsuccessfully. The prefect was attacked, he barely escaped from the dump. One of the attacking monks was severely punished, from which he died. The archbishop gave his body to an honorable burial, as a martyr for piety. “Humble people,” says Socrates, “did not approve of this Cyril’s jealousy, for they knew that Ammonius was punished for his recklessness and died in torment, not because he was forced to renounce Christ” ...

According to his temperament, St. Cyril was a man of struggle. And at the episcopal chair, he immediately showed himself as a passionate and authoritative person. He immediately entered into a fight with the Novatians, locked up all the Novatian churches located in Alexandria, took away sacred utensils from them, and deprived their bishop Theopemptus of everything that he had; at the same time, he took advantage of the benefits of secular power. The first years of the bishopric of St. Cyril also include his struggle with the Jews of Alexandria. Relations between Christians and Jews gradually became worse in Alexandria. Finally, the Jews made an insidious night attack on the Christians. “Irritated by this,” says Socrates, “Cyril, with a great multitude of people, goes to the Jewish synagogues, seizes them, and drives them out of the city, and gives their property to the people for plunder.” Orestes tried to defend the Jews, presenting to Emperor Theodosius II the unprofitability of the total expulsion of Jews from Alexandria, but his presentation was not successful ... At the same time, there was a popular outrage during which Hypatia, a woman philosopher, was killed. At the same time, many laid the blame for this murder on the archbishop - hardly with reason. In any case, the episcopal activity of St. Cyril took place in a difficult and vague situation. Alexandria was generally a restless city. Saint Cyril tried to bring comfort with his pastoral word. Sermons he called his usual and constant business. At one time they were a great success - according to Gennady Massilisky, they were memorized. Relatively few of them have survived to our time. In his early sermons, St. Cyril persistently struggles with the rebellious spirit of the Alexandrians, denounces robberies, denounces the superstitions of the pagans and the dual faith of Christians. In later sermons, dogmatic questions obscure questions of moral life. Of particular interest are the "Easter Epistles" of St. Cyril, 29 of them have been preserved, for the years 414 - 442.

3. Nestorius, who entered the See of Constantinople in 428, soon caused confusion and excitement with his Christological teaching. The turmoil that began in Constantinople soon spread beyond its borders. “Everywhere,” John of Antioch wrote a little later, “both in places far from us and in places close to us, everything has begun to move, everywhere one and the same talk is heard. day are separated one from the other as a result of this sense. The West, Egypt and even Macedonia decisively separated from unity "(with Nestorius). The news of Constantinople reached Alexandria very soon, probably from the apocrysiaries of the Bishop of Alexandria, and already in the spring of 429 Cyril opposed Nestorius, although without naming him. In view of the fact that "thoughts alien to the truth began to spread in Egypt," St. Cyril issues a special and detailed "epistle to the monks" in the clarification of Christological truths. Following this, St. Cyril addresses a message to Nestorius himself, urging him to stop the "universal temptation" that his opinions and writings cause. Saint Cyril expressed himself mildly and reservedly, but Nestorius was very nervous and irritated at this intervention of the "Egyptian" in his affairs. The further development of the Nestorian dispute was greatly complicated by the constant rivalry and mutual distrust of Alexandria and Constantinople - many recalled the struggle between Theophilus and the blessed Chrysostom. At court, the intervention of St. Cyril was met with great discontent - it seemed that the "Egyptian" was again violating the church peace established with such difficulty. The supporters of Nestorius set the emperor against Saint Cyril, just as the Arianists in their time slandered the great Athanasius. Saint Cyril found out about this with great chagrin, and with all his natural passion, he continued to act with restraint and peacefully. At the beginning of the year 430, he turns to Nestorius with a second dogmatic epistle, and explains in it, on the basis of Tradition and the unchanging church faith, the mystery of the incarnation. This message was subsequently approved at the Council of Ephesus. At the same time, St. Cyril wrote about controversial issues to various people - to the emperor Theodosius ("On the Right Faith"), to his wife Evdokia and to his sisters. In these epistles, he explains in great detail the dogma of the incarnation, analyzes the wrong opinions about it and the objections of the Nestorians against the true idea of ​​the God-human hypostasis of Christ. At the same time, Saint Cyril cites a large number of paternal testimonies. Finally, he releases five books against Nestorius. All these creations of St. Cyril were widely disseminated. The question of Nestorius' opinions was thus put sharply and clearly. Apparently, Cyril instructed his apocrysiaries in Constantinople to demand that Nestorius formally adhere to his dogmatic expositions... Saint Cyril contrasted his confession with the Nestorian sermon. Not everyone and everywhere reacted equally to the positive and polemical side of Saint Cyril's activity, and not all opponents of Nestorius were ready to unite around Saint Cyril. This made the victory of truth very slow and difficult. At the same time, not everyone immediately realized the seriousness and importance of the impending dogmatic dispute. First of all, this was understood in Rome. Complete unanimity was immediately established between Pope Celestine and Saint Cyril, and the pope empowered the Archbishop of Alexandria to act on his behalf as well, as his "locum tenens" (vices gerens)... In Rome, not only on the basis of the materials presented by Saint Cyril, Nestorius himself sent the Pope a collection of his sermons. All this material was handed over to the conclusion of the famous Massilian presbyter John Cassian, who soon presented his Seven Books on the Incarnation of Christ to Rome. His conclusion was very harsh. And in August 430, the pope, with a local council, declared the teachings of Nestorius heretical and instructed Saint Cyril to appeal to Nestorius once again with admonition, and if Nestorius did not bring repentance and renunciation within ten days, the pope declared him deposed and excommunicated. Through Saint Cyril, the pope sent his messages to Nestorius himself, to the clergy of Constantinople, and to some bishops of the East. In October 430, another local council met in Alexandria. He repeated the definitions of the Council of Rome and supplemented them with a detailed formula for renunciation for Nestorius. These were the famous "chapters" (κεφαλαια) or anathematisms of St. Cyril, 12 in number. Simultaneously with this, St. Cyril addressed a letter to John of Antioch, to Juvenal of Jerusalem and to Akkakiy of Beroea, one of the most venerable and respected bishops of the East. Based on these letters and on the basis of Roman definitions, John of Antioch turned to Nestorius with a warning message... But St. Cyril's anathematisms were met in the East with bewilderment and even anxiety. On behalf of John of Antioch, they were dismantled by Andrew of Samosata and even more sharply by Theodoret of Cyrus. Against these objections Saint Cyril "had to" write a defense. Kirill was cast over by his opponents as a shadow of iniquity and apollinarianism. At the same time, Nestorius stirred up the people of Constantinople against the "Egyptian," reminded of the former hostility of Alexandria to Constantinople, of the persecution of Chrysostom, erected by Theophilus of Alexandria. At the same time, Nestorius delayed the action of the Roman and Alexandria conciliar decisions, convincing the emperor to convene an Ecumenical Council. The sacrament about the convocation of the council was published on November 19 (430), the term for convocation was set for Pentecost of the following year. In Constantinople, apparently, they were afraid that Cyril would evade and not appear at the Council. Meanwhile, he met the convocation of the council with joy, expecting from him the resolution of the matter. He actively prepared for the council, collecting materials for a dogmatic analysis of the questions raised.

4. The activities of the Ephesian Council proceeded in a difficult and difficult situation. The main fighter for Orthodoxy was Saint Cyril, supported by the local bishop Memnon and the Roman legates. Nestorius enjoyed the support of the emperor, and the committee Candidian, authorized by the emperor to open and monitor order during the council, openly interfered with the actions of the Orthodox. Immediately after his arrival in Ephesus, Saint Cyril began to speak both in the meetings of bishops and before the people with speeches and sermons on the subject of the dispute, denouncing Nestorius and defending himself against the suspicions and accusations raised against him. The Ephesian Bishop Memnon openly took the side of Saint Cyril and forbade Nestorius and his retinue from access to city churches, avoided communicating with him, as with a person of dubious faith ... Relations immediately became acute ... The opening of the Council was delayed due to the lateness of the "Eastern" ... After a two-week wait, Saint Cyril decided to start the council, despite the sharp opposition of Candidian and Nestorius and the protests of his supporters. St. Cyril presided over the opened cathedral. All dogmatic materials were considered. Nestorius did not appear at the cathedral and the council deputation was not allowed by the imperial guards to his house. As a result, Nestorius was declared deposed and excommunicated, and the second (apparently, and third) epistle of St. Cyril against him was accepted and approved. It was June 22, 430. Under the decision of this first meeting, there are 197 signatures (nestorius' protest was signed by 10 other bishops besides him). These decrees aroused the indignation of Candidian - he considered the assembly of June 22 an illegal assembly and prevented his fathers from communicating with Constantinople and other cities. However, he failed to isolate the fathers of the cathedral. Saint Cyril managed to send letters and messengers to both Alexandria and Constantinople. The emperor took the side of Nestorius. Nestorius was also supported by the finally arrived "Eastern" with John of Antioch. They did not recognize the council that had opened, they met with its fathers unfriendly and inattentively, and, without discussing the matter on the merits, together with the supporters of Nestorius, they composed their own council, at which they condemned and deposed Cyril and Memnon for "heretical heads" (propter haereticum praedictorum capitulorum sensum) and for breaking the church peace. The bishops assembled in Ephesus were thus divided and divided. The true council continued its activities even after the arrival of the "easterners," despite their protests and the sharp opposition of the secular authorities. At this time, the Roman legates arrived and entered into communion with Cyril and the cathedral (meeting on July 11) ... In one of his Ephesian speeches, St. Cyril figuratively describes the activities of the cathedral under the guise of fighting a fierce and many-headed serpent, and depicts John of Antioch, as an insidious observer who suddenly and unexpectedly takes the side of the enemy and begins to hit with arrows of hatred the wounded and exhausted fighters whom he should have helped. It can be said without exaggeration that St. Cyril endured the weight of the struggle more than others, and therefore he rightly said about himself: "I go out against him, drawing my spiritual sword. I fight for Christ with the beast." In Ephesus he fought himself, and in Constantinople through his apocrysiaries and through the special ambassadors of Potamon and Komarius, who remained in Constantinople after they brought back the deeds of the Council of Rome and Alexandria in 430. The emperor approved the deposition of Cyril and Memnon, but also approved the deposition of Nestorius, and counted on the reconciliation of the split; Comita John was sent to carry out these orders. He arrived in Ephesus at the beginning of August. Cyril and Memnon were taken into custody - however, they still managed to communicate with the outside world. Nestorius was also taken into custody. The true council protested against the actions of the emperor, objected to his interference in the affairs of faith. Both councils sent representatives to Constantinople. These delegates met with the emperor at Chalcedon in mid-September. Cyril's supporters won here. Nestorius was removed from Ephesus. A successor in the person of Saint Maximian was appointed and dedicated to him. However, the "Eastern" did not agree with this. Memnon and Saint Cyril were released from prison. On October 31, 431, Saint Cyril returned to Alexandria, exhausted by the struggle, but in the halo of a confessor. The delegates of the true council remained in Constantinople, as a kind of temporary council under the new Archbishop of Constantinople.

5. After the Council of Ephesus, Saint Cyril continued his dogmatic struggle. The victory over Nestorius was achieved at the cost of a schism in the Church, behind which was a theological misunderstanding between the "Egyptians" and the "Eastern." Next in line was the task of reconciliation and reunification. In addition, Nestorianism was not completely defeated, and the conciliar condemnation of Nestorius in the East was not accepted by everyone. The lies of Nestorianism for the "Eastern" have not yet been revealed. The theological struggle had to deepen even more - the question arose with new acuteness about the meaning of the entire Antiochian theology, about the theology of Theodore and Diodorus, as universally recognized teachers of the East. And at the same time, the question was raised about Alexandrian theology, of which Saint Cyril was now a typical representative... Immediately after the Council, Saint Cyril summed up the struggle in his "Defensive Speech" to the emperor. Then he took up the analysis of Theodoret's objections to his XII anathematisms... The question of reunification with the "Eastern" was very acute. The "Eastern" made the reconciliation condition Cyril's refusal from everything he had written against Nestorius, "or epistles, or fragments, or whole books," and, above all, from his "chapters." Of course, this was impossible, and would have meant a renunciation of the Council of Ephesus. St. Cyril considered it impossible to retreat into dogmatic obscurity, which was proposed by the "Eastern" - to confine oneself to the Nicene symbol, and to explain it with the Christological epistle of St. Athanasius to Epictetus of Corinth. At the same time, Cyril diligently explained the meaning of his theological judgments. The cause of reconciliation moved slowly. I had to fight against court intrigues - to fight not only with words, but also with gold ... A group of moderates gradually emerged in the east, agreeing to communicate with Cyril, but stubbornly against the deposition of Nestorius. Few agreed to the deposition of Nestorius. There were not a few stubborn opponents of St. Cyril and direct supporters of Nestorius. At the end of 432, Paul of Emesa was sent to Alexandria from the moderate majority of the "Eastern". He managed to come to an agreement with Cyril, and on Christmas Day 432 he was received in Alexandria in fellowship. At the beginning of 433, complete unity in the Church was also restored. St. Cyril marked it with his famous epistle to John of Antioch "Let the heavens rejoice"... However, this "reunification" with the East was not without controversy, objected both the stubborn Antiochians and the extreme Alexandrians. Cyril had to explain to the latter the meaning of "reunification. The East was also slowly calming down. Suspicions against St. Cyril did not go out. At the same time, disputes began about Theodore of Mopsuestia. Constantinople, was stopped by the imperial prohibition "to do anything against the dead in peace with the Church." This was at that time for the good of the Church, since the condemnation of the Antiochian theologians threatened to disturb the calm of the East, which had not yet come to full peace. St. Cyril refrained from harsh actions, but at the same time he worked on a book against Theodore and Diodorus, and did not hide his negative attitude towards their "blasphemous language and pen."

6. The life of St. Cyril, as far as we know it, is almost completely dissolved in the history of his time. We know about him almost only as a fighter against Nestorianism, and this, indeed, left his main forces. From the surviving sermons and letters, one can get an idea of ​​him as a persistent and firm pastor, who closely followed the life of his flock and his diocese. After a turbulent life, he died in 444. In church memory, his image was forever imprinted as the image of a deep and sharp theologian. This was not hindered by the fact that for a long time his name, authority and words were abused by the Monophysites. For the Orthodox fighters against Monophysitism, St. Cyril has always remained "the rule of faith" - for Pope Leo and for Flavian. The Chalcedonian Fathers defined their faith as "the faith of Saint Cyril." The Fifth Ecumenical Council relied on Cyril's judgment when condemning the "three chapters." St. Maximus the Confessor relied on St. Cyril in the fight against the Monothelites, and St. Anastasius of Sinai. St. Cyril had less influence in the West. It was as if they kept silent about him here, and in any case he was little known and remembered.

The memory of St. Cyril is celebrated in the East on June 9th, and together with St. Athanasius on January 18th, in the West on January 28th.

II. creations

1. Among the works of St. Cyril, the first in time were his exegetical works on the Old Testament. Even before his bishopric, he wrote the book "On Worship in Spirit and in Truth" (in dialogic form), 13 books of "Graceful Sayings" - Γλαφυρά θ, probably interpretations of the minor prophets and the book of Isaiah. In these interpretations, St. Cyril adhered to the Alexandrian method, sometimes even in its extremes. "Cut off the uselessness of history and remove, as it were, the wood of the letter, and reach the very core of the plant, i.e. carefully examine the inner fruit of the commanded and eat it," - this is how he defines the rule of interpretation. Under the letter of Scripture, he is looking for "spiritual meaning." In the appendix to the Old Testament, this rule was fully justified, "for what is given in the law are images, and in the shadows the image of truth is inscribed." Therefore, the law was repealed only in its letter, but not in its spiritual content and meaning. In the spiritual sense, the law still remains in force. In his first interpretative work, Saint Cyril reveals this mysterious, allegorical and immutable meaning of the Mosaic Law and sketches a coherent outline of the Old Testament economy. In particular, he dwells on the Old Testament types of the Church. In the books of "Graceful Sayings" he develops the same theme and sets himself the task of showing that "in all the books of Moses the sacrament of Christ is foreshadowed." Allegorism is somewhat weaker expressed in interpretations of prophetic books; historical research predominates in them.

Cyril's interpretations of the Book of Kings, the Song of Songs, the prophets Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Baruch and Daniel have been preserved only in fragments... In addition to the Greek text, St. Cyril often refers to the Hebrew.

2. The compilation of an extensive interpretation of the Gospel of John, in 12 books, belongs to the pre-Nestorian period, only excerpts from the VII and VIII books have been preserved. The commentary has a dogmatic character and is connected by origin with the tasks of the anti-Arian controversy. The interpretation of the Gospel of Luke, originally consisting of 156 conversations, has been preserved with gaps - in the ancient Syriac translation it is more complete than in the original Greek. Small excerpts from the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew and other New Testament books have been preserved. The exegetical works of St. Cyril were subsequently translated into Syriac, already in the Monophysite milieu.

3. St. Cyril wrote a great deal on dogmatic themes. The pre-Nestorian period includes two huge works devoted to the disclosure of the Trinity dogma - "Treasury" and the book "On the Holy and Indivisible Trinity." In the Treasury, St. Cyril sums up the entire anti-Arian controversy in a simple and concise manner, relying in particular on St. Athanasius. First of all, he dwells on biblical arguments. In the book on the Trinity, St. Cyril develops his thoughts in a freer and, moreover, in a dialogical form. St. Cyril also touches on the Christological theme here.

Both books are written for a certain friend named Nemesia.

4. During the Nestorian struggle, Saint Cyril wrote a lot. In the first place it is necessary to recall his famous anathematisms or "chapters" against Nestorius with related "explanations" and "defenses" against the "Eastern" and against Theodoret. Previously, anathematisms were compiled "Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten" and the book "On the Right Faith" - to the emperor (Theodosius) and to the royal virgins. After the Council of Ephesus, a "Word against those who do not want to confess the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God" and a dialogue, "That Christ is one," were compiled. All these "books" of St. Cyril, directed against Nestorianism, were very early translated into Syriac, partly by Ravulla, ep. Edessa. The books "Against the Sinusiasts" and "Against Theodore and Diodorus" have survived only in fragments. Numerous letters must be added here, many of which are dogmatic treatises. Such are the letters or epistles to Nestorius, a letter to John of Antioch containing the formula of unity, letters to Akakios of Miletus, to Valerian of Iconium, two letters to Sukkens, Bishop of Diocesarea. In the dogmatic writings of St. Cyril, references to patristic tradition occupy a prominent place. Apparently, he also compiled a special collection of paternal testimonies, the "book of texts," which is mentioned by Leontius of Byzantium. Cyril wrote, it seems, against the Pelagians.

5. The first 10 books from the extensive apologetic work have been preserved - "On the Holy Christian Religion Against the Godless Julian." Of books XI and XX, only minor fragments in Greek and Syriac have survived - the whole work apparently consisted of 30 books. Saint Cyril analyzes here "the three books of Julian against the Gospel and against the Christians," written in 362-363 and, apparently, retained their popularity at the beginning of the 5th century. The "Books" of Julian are known to us only in fragments preserved by St. Cyril. He gives the full text of his opponent and then analyzes it in detail. The surviving books deal with the relationship between paganism and Judaism and between the Old and New Testaments. In particular, St. Cyril speaks a lot about the agreement between the Evangelists, the weather forecasters, and John.

The controversy of St. Cyril has a rather sharp character. Little is new in it. St. Cyril repeats previous apologists, especially Eusebius of Caesarea. Saint Cyril wrote after the Council of Ephesus.

III. Theology

1. In his theological confession, Saint Cyril always proceeds from the Scriptures and from the teaching of the Fathers. With great sharpness he emphasizes the limitations of our reason and the insufficiency of our verbal means, and from this he deduces the need to rely on the direct evidence of the Word of God. "And, indeed, reasoning about the Highest Essence of all and Its mysteries turns out to be a dangerous thing and not harmless for many," remarks St. Cyril. At the same time, he does not attach much importance to the logical minting of concepts used to determine the truths of faith. This was his weakness, which greatly hindered him in the fight against Nestorianism... St. Cyril persistently emphasized the limits of logical consciousness: not only the Divine Essence, but also the mysteries of God's will are incomprehensible and unknown to man, and one should not search too inquisitively for reasons and grounds. In its self-existence, the Divine nature is inaccessible, hidden and unimaginable, not only for human eyes, but for the whole creation. Only through considering the works of God is it possible to ascend to a certain extent to the knowledge of God. But at the same time, one must firmly remember the infinite distance between God and the creature, the incommensurability of the boundless nature of the Creator with the limitations of the creature. The impression is never equal to the seal itself, and the reflection of the truth in our mental representation is not identical with the truth itself. We always "think poorly about God"... Only in shadows and riddles is knowledge of God accessible to us... would be quite right and correct to express the properties of the Divine and inexpressible nature. Therefore, we are forced to use words consistent with our nature, at least for some understanding of objects that exceed our mind. Indeed, is it possible to express something that exceeds our very thought. As a result of this we, taking the roughness of human concepts as if for a symbol or image, should try to pass in an accessible way to the very properties of the Divine"... And in the mysterious contemplations of the prophets, it was not the nature of God that was revealed, "what it is in its very essence," but only " vision of the likeness of the glory of God"... In Scripture itself, the truth is revealed in application and covertly, and therefore, without grace-filled help and illumination, the true understanding of the Scriptures is also not available. Only in the experience of faith is the meaning of the Word of God revealed. Only faith, and not research, takes us beyond the limits of our creaturely limitations. Faith must precede investigation; firm knowledge can only be established on the basis of faith. Without enlightenment by the Spirit it is impossible to come to the knowledge of the truth, it is also impossible to acquire an accurate understanding of the divine dogmas. And the Father does not give the knowledge of Christ to the unclean, for it is indecent to pour precious ointment into a pit... Knowledge about God is speculation and contemplation, as opposed to external reference. Our present knowledge is imperfect knowledge, "partial knowledge"; but at the same time, knowledge is true and reliable, for even in small knowledge the beauty of truth shines whole and intact ... In the future life, this incompleteness and concealment will be removed, and then we will "uncoveredly and clearly see the glory of God, telling us about Himself the clearest knowledge"... "Then, having no need for any image at all, nor for riddles and parables, we will understand the beauty of the Divine nature of God and the Father with an open, as it were, face and an unhindered mind, seeing the glory of Him who appeared from Him." The radiant beauty of the stars fades in the power of sunlight. So in the perfect light of Divine glory, the current dark knowledge will be abolished.

Saint Cyril is not limited to apophatic theology alone. But rather than knowledge through investigation and reasoning, he prefers knowledge ("gnosis") in the experience of spiritual life with and in Christ. Being a subtle and sharp theologian, he was not at all a philosopher in his spiritual make-up. In many ways he is close to the Cappadocians, and especially to St. Gregory the Theologian.

2. Complete knowledge about God consists in knowing not only that God exists, but also that "He is the Father and Whom the Father is, including here obviously the Holy Spirit," says St. Cyril. This is the highest knowledge about God, revealed by Christ, that He revealed to people the name of the Father, that He led them to the understanding of the Trinity mystery. The name Father is a name more appropriate to God than the name God... The Trinity of God is the highest truth of faith, revealed only in Christ and through Christ. It contains an essential novelty of Christianity. St. Cyril emphasizes that the Trinitarian truth is at the same time an unknown mystery, accepted in faith and only to some extent explained by imperfect analogies of created nature... In expounding the Trinitarian dogma, St. works of Saint Athanasius. Under the conditions of the anti-Arian controversy, he dwells with special attention on the disclosure and proof of the ontological nature of the Trinity hypostasis. Following the Cappadocians in Trinitarian theology, St. Cyril clearly distinguishes between the concepts of "essence" (or "nature"), on the one hand, and "hypostases," on the other. One Divine nature is known "in three independent hypostases"; of course - not only is known, but also exists. Trinity names point to real differences, to the features of hypostatic existence. Trinity hypostases are different in being, each exists in its own way (ίδίως), ε is what it is; and at the same time they are consubstantial... This consubstantial means not only the abstract unity or identity of nature, but also the perfect interpenetration and mutual "communion" of Divine persons, τήν είσάπαν άναπλξκήν. Therefore, in each Person, each is fully known, since, for all the peculiarities of their existence, they "essentially abide in each other," εν άλλήλξις ένυπάρχξντες ξύσιωδώς... roic names are relative, indicating the mutual relationship of hypostases. And besides the hypostatic differences in the Holy Trinity, there are no others... In this revelation of the Divine Trinity, St. Cyril remains within the limits of Cappadocian theology. Divine unity means for him the perfect identity of nature and the indissoluble mutual communion of hypostases. This unity of the Divine nature and Divine life is manifested in the perfect unity of God's will and Divine actions. And over everything there is one Kingdom and Power of the Holy Trinity, for everything is inseparable from the Father through the Son in the Spirit...

The unknown Trinity unity of Divine being and life finds and must find its perfect reflection and likeness in the Church. Christ brings those who believe in Him to spiritual unity, "so that unity, which is in all accord and indivisibly unanimous, reflects the features of the natural and essential unity conceivable in the Father and the Son." Of course, the union of love and like-mindedness does not reach the inseparability that the Father and the Son have in the identity of essence. However, in the unanimity and unanimity of the believers, both the essential identity and the perfect interpenetration of the persons of the Holy Trinity are reflected. For there is also a kind of "natural unity," by which we are connected with each other and with God in Christ and through Christ; so that, being each himself "in his limit and hypostasis," "separating each from the other in souls and bodies into a special personality," we are essentially united in the unity of the body of Christ, - through the Eucharist ... We become "communal" to each other co-corporeal with Christ, who dwells in us through his flesh... "Is it not already clear that we are all one, both in one another and in Christ," concludes St. Cyril. And again we are indissolubly united among ourselves in the unity of the Spirit, “having accepted the transcendental reflection of the Holy Spirit united with us” ... So, “we are all one in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, - one in the identity of properties, and in uniformity in religion and by communion with the holy flesh of Christ, and by communion with one and the holy Spirit." Despite the incompleteness of similarity, the Church, as a union of unanimity and peace, is a certain best image of Divine unity - and the image indicated by Christ himself in His High Priestly Prayer: "as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, So and they shall be one in us...(John 17:21).

3. The Trinity of the Godhead, already revealed in the Old Testament, was revealed by Christ in the New. The revelation of God as the Father is the revelation of the Trinity, for the Fatherhood presupposes sonship, and the Father is the Father of the Son. The name of the Father is the name of the hypostasis, and indicates the relation of the First Person to the Second and to the Third. The Father is also called the Beginning and Source, for he is the root and source of the Divine, and the name of the source here means only "being from what." The concepts of time and change are completely inapplicable to the Divine life - therefore, all hypostatic properties and relationships must be conceivable as eternal and immutable. There is no gap between the Divinity and the Patronymic of the First Hypostasis, and the eternity of the Patronymic means the eternity of the inexpressible Divine birth, i.e. eternity of the Sonship. From the eternal Father, the eternal Son is born. He does not "become," does not "come into being," but from eternity "was" and abides in the Father, as in the source, always exists in Him, as His Word, Wisdom, Power, Inscription, Reflection and Image ... By this last definition, St. Cyril attaches special significance to the apostolic and beloved definitions of St. Athanasius - they especially clearly express the perfect consubstantiality and equal honor of the Father and the Son. As an image, a reflection and a "mark," the Hypostasis of the Father, the Son is inseparable from the One whose reflection He is, but He Himself is in Him and has the Father in Himself, according to the perfect identity of nature and properties, - "He Himself is in the Father naturally" .. Without perfect identity of properties, there would be no accuracy in display and drawing. The Son is in the Father and from the Father, not having received his being from outside or in time, but being in essence and shining from it, as its brilliance comes from the sun. Birth is an act of nature (τής φύσεως) ΰ not an action of the will - and this is the difference between birth and creation. The Son dwells "in the womb of the Father," as "rooted in him by the immutable identity of essence," as "existing and always coexisting" in the Father and with the Father, ώς ένυάρχων. Therefore, the Father is contemplated and "manifested" in the Son, as in a kind of mirror, as in His "essential and natural image," as in the image of His essence. The Son is called the Mark precisely because the mark is co-natural and inseparable from the essence of which it is the mark. "Consubstantial" thus signifies, for St. Cyril, not only the generic similarity and commonality of properties, but also the perfect and indivisible unity of life. The concepts of "birth" and "inscription" mutually complement and explain each other. The mark indicates the perfect likeness of properties, and the birth indicates the origin "from the essence" and "natural coexistence" with the Father. In "consubstantiality" or "natural unity" the self-hypostasis of the Persons is not erased: with the unity of essence, the Father and the Son are each "in his own person" (έν ίδίω πρξσώπω) θ in a special existence (ίδιαστάτως) νo without division and dissection, - immediately and separately and connected. St. Cyril does not have a perfect uniformity in Trinitarian terminology, and through the later Cappadocian word usage, the former, Nicene and Athanasian, often breaks through. He uses the totality of concepts and definitions in order to substantiate and reveal the perfect consubstantial Son and Word.

4. The Son is the Creator and Provider of the world, inseparable from the Father and the Spirit, the Beginning and Organizer of everything that arises and is created. In the creative activity of the Son there is no service or subordination; on the contrary, it shows His dominion over all. “Being Himself Life by nature, He grants beings being, life and movement in various ways. Not that through any division or change He enters into each of the various beings by nature, but the creation itself is diversified by the inexpressible wisdom and power of the Creator .. And one (is) the Life of everything, entering into each being, as much as it befits and as much as it can perceive. That is why the Evangelist says: "what began to be. In Him was life"(John 1:3-4), - such was, apparently, the oldest reading of these gospel verses, changed already in the post-Arian era. Everything that exists has life in the Word... Creation arises and comes to life through touch and communion with Life, and in the Word it has its own life and being. The Son not only calls the creature to being, but also contains what has happened through himself, “as if mixing Himself into that which does not have eternal existence by its nature, and becoming Life for the existing, so that everything that has happened abides and remains within the limits of its nature. " Being present in the creature through communion (διά μετξχής) θ reviving it, the Word, as it were, overcomes the weakness of created beings that have arisen and therefore are subject to destruction, and "artificially, as it were, arranges for them eternity." The Word is life by nature, or life itself, and therefore it is life for the creature. Through the light of the Word from the darkness of non-existence, the creature becomes and arises, "and the Light shines in the darkness"... The presence of the Word in creation does not erase the line between it and the creature. On the contrary, this line becomes all the clearer for us when it is revealed that the creature exists and lives only through communion with something other than it, only through communion with self-existing Life. Creation is an incomprehensible act of God's will, and creative power is inherent only in God himself. Creation is alien to God and, as having a beginning, must have an end. Only the goodness of God protects her from this natural instability... These reflections of St. Cyril are very reminiscent of the teaching of St. Athanasius in his early word "On the Incarnation." And together with Athanasius, Saint Cyril rejects the Fidoan idea of ​​the Word as a mediator "between God and the world in creation and providence for the creature. Between God and the creature there is nothing in between, no "middle nature" or being. There is only God above the creature, and everything else is "subject to the yoke of slavery"...

5. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is developed by St. Cyril in some detail. For polemical reasons, he dwells on the proofs of the Divinity of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is from God and is God, consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and in no way inferior or less than them in Divine dignity. He has a "substantial essence," "the purest and most perfect nature," He is God from God, "self-wisdom and self-power," άυτόχρημα σξφία καί δύναμις. Θ Therefore, he unites us with the Divine nature and, dwelling in us, through communion makes us temples of God and gods by grace. Through him, God dwells in people. He is the fullness of all blessings and the source of all beauty, the Spirit of truth, life, wisdom and power. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the image of this Divine procession is not revealed to you and is not known. Proceeding from the Father, the Holy Spirit abides in the Father essentially, for it proceeds "inseparably and indissolubly" and is the "own" Spirit of the Father. By virtue of the perfect and inseparable consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit is "proper" to the Son, "essentially united with Him," by nature "born" and belongs to Him, naturally dwells in Him - is "the own Spirit of the Father and the Son." And at the same time, he exists hypostatically and about himself... By virtue of the identity of nature, the Spirit cannot be separated from the Son and through Him proceeds by nature... St. Cyril strives to emphasize the perfect consubstantiality and inseparability of the Son and the Spirit: "The Son, being in essence a sharer of the Father's natural blessings, has the Spirit in the same way as it should be understood about the Father, - that is not as alien and external to Him." Therefore, He sends or pours out the Spirit into the world. Speaking of the procession of the Spirit through the Son, Saint Cyril does not have in mind to explore or determine the image of the "indescribable procession," but seeks, on the one hand, to affirm the truth of consubstantiality, and on the other hand, to determine the relationship between the actions in the world of the Spirit and the incarnate Son. In other words, he seeks to clarify the meaning of the Sending down and the descent of the Holy Spirit into the world in connection with the redemptive work of the Son of God. The Savior speaks of the Spirit as "Another Comforter," to distinguish Him from Himself and to show His special and Own hypostasis. And at the same time He calls Him the "Spirit of Truth" and apparently "breathes" Him in order to testify that the Spirit belongs to the Divine essence or nature. not the influx of alien and foreign power, but of Himself, (only) in a different way - for this he calls the Paraclete the Spirit of Truth, i.e. Spirit of Himself, for the Holy Spirit is not thought to be alien to the essence of the Only Begotten, proceeds naturally from it and in relation to the identity of nature there is nothing else in comparison with it, although it is conceived as self-existent. So the expression "Spirit of Truth" should lead us to a full knowledge of the truth. Just as he who knows the Truth, of which He is the Spirit, will not partly reveal it to those who honor Him, but will completely tell the secret about It ... And He will not say anything that contradicts Me, and He will not preach to you an alien doctrine, for He will not introduce any of their laws. Since He is the Spirit and, as it were, My mind, then it will be said what is in Me. And the Savior says this not so that we consider the Holy Spirit to be servant, according to the ignorance of some, but on the contrary, from the desire to assure the disciples that, being nothing other than different from Him, in relation to consubstantiality, His Spirit will certainly speak like this, and act and desire . After all, He would not have predicted the future in the same way as I, if He did not exist in Me and did not happen through Me, and was not one and the same essence with Me "... St. Cyril means the "natural unity" of the Son and the Spirit and the resulting unity of their work.By virtue of the Trinitarian consubstantiality, the Spirit, being the "pure image" of the Father, is also the natural likeness of the Son. Therefore, in the Spirit given from the Father, the Son brings light to his disciples, teaches them, and through the Spirit dwells in them.

To see in Saint Cyril an approach to the Augustinian idea of ​​the procession of the Spirit and to bring it closer δι "υιξυ ρ filioque would be a violation of the connection of thought. And this is directly supported by his own testimony. In the IX anathematism against Nestorius, Saint Cyril condemned those "who say that there is only one Lord Jesus Christ is glorified from the Spirit, using His own power, as alien (άλλξτρία) to Himself, and having received from Him the power to overcome unclean spirits and work Divine signs in people, and does not say, on the contrary, that the Spirit, through Whom he created the Signs of God, is to Him own (ϊδιξς) Spirit." Blessed Theodoret remarked against this: "If Cyril calls the Spirit his own Son in the sense that he natural Son and comes from the Father, then we agree with him and recognize his expressions as Orthodox. If (he calls) in the sense that the Spirit from the Son or through the Son has being, then we reject this expression as blasphemous and impious. "Saint Cyril in his answer confirmed that he had in mind the" wicked "which was not at all supposed by Theodoret" opinion, but wanted to emphasize that the Spirit "is not alien to the Son, because The Son has everything in common with the Father." Anathematism IX, of course, has a Christological content, and in it St. "or the affinity of the Spirit and the incarnate Word. He wants to say: there is no such relationship between Christ and the Holy Spirit as between the saints and the Spirit ... Christ not only receives the Holy Spirit according to His humanity, but He Himself gives Him, as God, for the sake of us, into the sanctification of his flesh, as the firstfruits of our nature, He receives the Holy Spirit from Himself, "receives His own Spirit, and gives Him to Himself as God." the task of investigating the image of the procession "through the Son"...

6. In his Trinitarian confession, Saint Cyril sums up the results of the theological struggle and work that has already ended. There is little that is new or original. The whole interest and the whole significance of his trinitarian theology lies precisely in this lack of self-sufficiency. He testifies to us about the average theological outlook of the beginning of the 5th century. His teaching about the Word in creation deserves special attention - this is the last chapter in the history of the ancient Christian teaching about the Word, about the Logos.

IV. house building

1. In his Christological confession, Saint Cyril proceeds from the living and concrete image of Christ, as it is recorded in the Gospel and preserved in the Church. This is the image of the God-man, the Incarnate Word, who descended from heaven and became a man. With complete clarity, Saint Cyril defines and describes the meaning of the Incarnation already in his early works (in particular, in his commentary on the Gospel of John).

"The Word became flesh"... This means that the Only Begotten became a man and called himself... Flesh became, Saint Cyril explains, "lest anyone think that It appeared in the same way as in the prophets or in other saints, but It in truth became flesh, i.e. a man." At the same time, the Word did not come out of its own and unchanging Divine nature and did not turn into flesh. The divinity of the Word was in no way diminished by the incarnation. In the Incarnation, the Son of God did not lose his divine dignity, did not leave heaven, was not separated from the Father - to allow the Divinity of the Word to be diminished in the Incarnation would mean to destroy the whole meaning of the Incarnation, for this would mean that in the Incarnation there was no real and complete union of the Divinity and human nature . The Word is God by nature and in the flesh and with the flesh, has it as its own and at the same time different from itself. And when the Son of God is in the form of a man, "I accept the ghost of a slave," dwelled and circulated among people on earth, the glory of His Divinity invariably filled the heavens, and He abode with the Father, - "and I saw His glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father"... The Divine dignity of the Incarnate remains inviolable. “Therefore,” remarks St. Cyril, “although the Evangelist says that the Word became flesh, he does not claim that It was overcome by the weakness of the flesh, or that It was deprived of its original strength and glory, as soon as it was clothed with our feeble and inglorious body,” when it descended to brotherhood with slaves and creatures. On the contrary, in Christ the slavish nature is liberated, ascending into a mysterious unity with the One who accepted and bore the "sign of a slave"; and by kinship with Him and to all of us, His Divine dignity extends, and passes on to all mankind. For "we were all in Christ, and the common face of mankind ascends to His face," - and He enriches all to well-being and glory by the community of His nature with people. "It was not some kind of" other son, "but one and the same The Son of the Father, who assumed human flesh for us, is “perfect by the nature of the Divine, and then, as it were, diminished in the measures of humanity”... “The whole sacrament of economy consists in the exhaustion and humiliation of the Son of God,” said St. Cyril... And through this "kenosis," through this ineffable and free indulgence and humiliation, the incarnate Word occupies "as it were a middle place" between God and people, between the highest Divinity and humanity... Through Him, as through the Mediator, we "come into contact with the Father" ... For He also has us in Himself, since He co-perceived our nature, "transforming it into His own life," through some inexpressible union and intercourse... With this earthly body, which became the body of the Word, He was and appeared immediately God and man, united in Himself what was divided and separated according to nature. By nature flesh, i.e. humanity, in Christ there is something "other," different from that which is from the Father and in the Father of God the Word. But at the same time, "we understand the Word as being one with His own flesh." In this inexpressible "coition" (συνδρξμή) θ "unity" (ένωσις) θ is contained "the whole mystery of Christ," "one of the two" (έν τι τό έξ αμφξιν)... Son of God, Christ has one face and one hypostasis, I to this single incarnation The Incarnate Word applies to everything that is said in the gospel. St. Cyril explains this unity by the example of the inseparable union in a living person of the soul and body, which are different from each other, but do not allow isolation. Soul and body are combined into one person. Inspired Scripture preaches one Son and Christ. "Because He is God the Word, He is conceived of as different from the flesh; but since He is flesh, He is conceived as something different from the Word. unspeakable union and intercourse. The Son is one and only, both before the union with the flesh, and when he was united with the flesh. Christ is not divided into a "two of Sons," and the "proper humanity" of the Word cannot be cut off from the "true Sonship." Christ was a true and complete man (τέλειξς άνθρωπξς), a "whole man," of a rational soul and body... He was not a man in appearance or mental representation, although he was not only a "simple man" (ψιλός άνθρωπξς). .. Ξn was a man truly and naturally, And possessed everything human, except for sin. He assumed "the whole nature of man," and this is the whole meaning of His saving work, for, after St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Cyril repeats, "what is not perceived is not saved." In Christ, the flesh he assumed was transformed into the "proper quality" of the life-giving Word, i.e. into life, and she herself became life-giving. And so it gives life to us. "Inexpressibly and beyond the understanding of the human Word, united with its flesh and, as it were, transferring all of it into itself by the power that can give life to those in need of life, it expelled corruption from our nature and removed death, which initially received power (over us) due to sin. Likewise Whoever, taking a spark, pours a lot of chaff on it in order to preserve the seed of fire, so our Lord Jesus Christ, through His flesh, hides life in us and deposits immortality, as if a kind of seed that completely destroys corruption in us. The inseparable unification and, as it were, “interlacing” in a single person and hypostasis of Christ the Divinity and all of humanity, having transformed human nature into holiness and incorruption, makes a similar transformation in all people, to the extent of their union with Christ. For in Christ human nature is substantially sanctified and transfigured.

Saint Cyril, in describing the Divine-human Face of Christ, dual and at the same time inseparably one, like Saint Athanasius, is guided by soteriological motives, and in his Christology he is generally very close to Athanasius. Only "the one Christ," the Incarnate Word, the God-man, and not the "God-bearing man," can be the true Savior and Redeemer. For salvation consists first of all in the quickening of the creature, and therefore the self-existing Life had to be inseparably revealed in the perishable by nature. St. Cyril calls Christ the new Adam, emphasizing the community and brotherhood of all people with Him in humanity. But he places the main emphasis not on this innate unity, but on the unity that is realized in believers through a mysterious union with Christ in communion with His life-giving Body. In the Mystery of the Holy Blessing (Evlogia or Eucharist) we are united with Christ, just as melted pieces of wax merge with each other. We are united with Him not only by mood and not by love, but essentially, "physically," and even bodily, like the branches of a life-giving vine. And just as a small leaven leavens the whole dough, so the mysterious Eulogia leavens our whole body, as if kneading it into itself and filling it with its power, “so that Christ also abides in us and we in Him, for with all justice we can say that and the leaven is in the whole dough, and the dough is likewise in the whole leaven." Through the holy Flesh of Christ, “the property of the Only Begotten, i.e. Life, penetrates into us,” and all living human beings are transformed into eternal life, and mankind, created for eternal existence, is higher than death, freed from the deadness that entered with sin.

The One Person or hypostasis of Christ, as the Incarnate Word, is for St. Cyril not an abstract or speculative truth, to which he comes by reasoning, but a direct and immediate confession of faith, a description of experience and contemplation. St. Cyril contemplates the One Christ primarily in the Gospel. “Since the Only Begotten, the Word of God, was flesh, He seemed to have undergone a division, and speech about him comes from a double contemplation ... But although the speech about Him has become, as it were, double, however, He Himself is in everything one and the same, not divided into two after union with the flesh "... In the gospel image, the glory of the Only Begotten is mysteriously combined with the insignificance of human nature, which until the time hides the Divinity of the Word. But for believers, through the humiliated vision of a servant, Divine Glory clearly shines through from the beginning. In direct contemplation for St. Cyril, "the mutual communication of properties" is revealed, and he does not go beyond the limits of experience when he transfers names from one nature to another. For the human nature assumed by Him is the Word's own.

2. In the heresy of Nestorius, Saint Cyril saw the denial of the most sincere and ontological union in Christ of the Divinity and humanity, the denial of the one Christ, His division into "two Sons." And it is against this that he first of all turns, showing those destructive conclusions that are predetermined and imposed by such a dissection in soteriology. First of all, he emphasizes the "inexpressible interweaving" and unity. And at the same time, he explains that God the Word Himself is the beginning and the focus of this unity - "we say that the Word Itself, the Only Begotten Son, unspeakably born from the essence of God and the Father, the Creator of the ages, through Whom everything and in Whom everything, for the last days of these days by the good pleasure of the Father, received the seed of Abraham according to the Scriptures, communed with flesh and blood, i.e. became a man, took on flesh and made it his own, was born flesh from the Most Holy Theotokos Mary. In other words, incarnation is a phenomenon and an action God himself, is the assimilation and perception of humanity by Him, - God the Word is the only acting subject in the act of incarnation, the Logos Himself was born a man from a wife... In the Nestorian interpretation, St. Cyril saw a kind of docetism, docetism in relation to the Divine, as if the incarnation is only mentally imagined, as if only in our synthesizing perception is the duality united in Christ... "If, - Saint Cyril argues, - The only-begotten Son of God, having taken a man from the venerable David and Abraham, contributed to his formation (in the womb) of the holy Virgin, united him with Himself, brought Him to death, and, having raised him from the dead, raised him to heaven and planted him at the right hand of God, then in vain, as it seems, the holy fathers taught, we teach and all the inspired Scriptures that He became man. Then the whole mystery of economy, of course, is completely overthrown. For then it turns out that it was not God who condescended and exhausted himself to a slave's appearance, but man was exalted to Divine glory and superiority. Then the movement from below, not from above ... On the contrary, Saint Cyril insists all the time that Christ is not a "god-bearing man"(άνθρωπξς θεξφόρξς), νpossessed by God or bearing God, but God incarnate... "Not a man reigned in us, but God, who appeared in humanity" ... Only Begotten became human, not just perceived human... Word became human, and therefore one Christ... This is the unity of His life and His work. And that's the only reason it saves. Christ lived, suffered, and died, as "God in the flesh" (ώς Θεός έν σαρκί), ΰ not as a man... "We confess," Cyril wrote with the cathedral to Nestorius, "that the very Son, born of God the Father and God The only-begotten, though impassible by his own nature, suffered in the flesh for us, according to the Scriptures, and in a crucified body he dispassionately assumed suffering for himself. own flesh. By the good pleasure of God, He accepted death for all, betraying her own body, although by nature He is life and is the resurrection, so that in own of the flesh, as in the firstfruits, trampling death with unspeakable power, to be the firstborn from the dead and the firstfruits from the dead, and open the way for human nature to achieve incorruption "... This does not mean that suffering is transferred to the Divine. The impassibility and immutability of the Divine nature for St. Cyril are self-evident and in the incarnation the unchangeable Word remained and remained such as it is, was, and will be, did not cease to be God. "own humanity" A word that does not exist in isolation or on its own... It does not belong to itself, but to the Word. For Saint Cyril, the concept of assimilation (ίδιξπόιησις), already noted by Saint Athanasius, is decisive. Consubstantial with us, taken from the Virgin, the body of Christ in the same sense is own Word in which each of us speaks of his body (ίδιξν σώμα)... The concept of "assimilation" in St. Cyril precedes the later teaching of the "enhypostasis" of humanity in Christ, later developed by Leontius of Byzantium. God the Word was born from a Virgin, He gave His Blood for us and "assumed for Himself the death of His flesh"... With such an understanding, it becomes not only acceptable, but also necessary, denied by Nestorius and his supporters, the name of the Holy Virgin Mother of God and Mother of God... For he who was born from the Virgin was God incarnate, and not a man joined to God from without.

Saint Cyril always sharply and resolutely rejected Apollinarism. He spoke out against Apollinaris even before he was suspected and accused of Apollinarism. Already in his interpretation of the Gospel of John, he emphasizes the "integrity" of humanity in Christ and the presence of a "reasonable soul" in Him as the subject of human sorrow and infirmities. And here he rejects any mixture of flesh and the Divine and any transformation of the flesh into the Divine nature. St. Cyril always presents the union of the Divinity and humanity as "unmixed" and "unchanging" (άσυγχύτως καί άτρέπτως) that the flesh was flesh, - not through the addition or application, not through the mixing or merging of essences, oύ κατά μετάστασιν ή τνρξπ... second letter" to Nestorius, St. Cyril confesses: "We do not say that the nature of the Word, having changed, became flesh, nor that It was changed into a whole person, consisting of soul and body. But we say that the Word, by hypostasis, united with By itself, the body, animated by a rational soul, inexpressibly and incomprehensibly for our mind, became a man, became a son of man, not by will and goodwill alone, not by perceiving only a person (or "role") ... We do not imagine this in such a way that in this combination the difference of natures was destroyed, but the Divinity and humanity in an inexpressible and inexplicable union remained committed(i.e. complete), revealing to us the one Lord Jesus Christ and the Son ... Thus we say that He Who Is and was born of the Father before the ages was born according to the flesh and of a woman - not so that His Divine nature took the beginning of being in Holy Virgin, and not that He, after being born from the Father, needed to be born from Her. For it would be reckless and frivolous to say that He who, before all ages, always abides with the Father, still had the need to be born in order to begin his being. Since He was born of a Woman for us and for our salvation, uniting human nature in hypostasis (with Himself), that is why it is said that He was born flesh. It is not so that a simple man was first born of the holy Virgin, and then the Word descended upon Him. But It, united with the flesh in the womb itself, was born according to the flesh, having appropriated the flesh with which it was born. We confess Him as such both in suffering and in resurrection: we do not say that the Word of God, by its very nature, was subjected to blows, nail ulcers and other wounds, because the Divine nature, as incorporeal, does not participate in suffering. But since His body was subjected to all these sufferings, which is His own then we say that the Word suffered for us. Because the Impassionate One was in a suffering body "... This confession is rightly considered almost the most remarkable of the creations of St. Cyril, in terms of brightness and clarity of thought. Characteristic here is this sharp emphasis on "assimilation," that the flesh was its own Word and everything that Christ endured and experienced as a human being belongs to the Word's own human nature. The fullness of humanity in Christ is not limited or deficient in any way. Humanity Words, not a particular human "face." And in this sense, the incarnate Word is "one with its own flesh," - "One of two," "of two essences," "of two different," "of two perfect," - ώς έξ άμφξτέρων τών ξύσιών ένα όντα...

With this affirmation of unity, Saint Cyril clarifies and defends the ontological reality or "truth" of the Incarnation. And in doing so, he is guided primarily by soteriological motives. Saint Cyril explains and defends the truth of experience and faith, and not a logical scheme, not a theological theory. And he argues not so much against individual theological formulas. In vain they accused him of finding fault with words and not wanting to understand that both Nestorius and other "Eastern" thought right, but expressed their faith in a different theological language. He just asserted that they were thinking incorrectly and, in any case, inaccurately, that the "Eastern" image of representation interferes with the exact perception of the unity of the Divine-human face and life. The "Eastern" tendency to "distinguish" first of all seemed to him dangerous, and the stubbornness of the "Eastern" only justified his suspicions. He himself did not always find and choose clear and precise words, he did not always express himself carefully and accurately. This shows that he is not so much a theological dispute as a debate about faith. It comes from contemplation, not from concepts. This is his strength. It is precisely soteriological motives that completely determine in their content his famous "chapters" or anathematisms. On soteriological grounds, he defends them against the "Eastern." In this he is a faithful successor of Saint Athanasius.

3. In his soteriological reasoning, Saint Cyril most often relies on two main texts of the Apostle Paul: Heb. 2:14, - "as children share in flesh and blood, He also took them in order to deprive by death of power that had the power of death, that is, the devil," and Rome. 8:3,- "As the law, weak through 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." In addition, Saint Cyril often cites 2 Cor. 5:15: "But Christ died for all, so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again." In other words, for Saint Cyril the Savior is first of all the High Priest... The soteriology of Cyril is most of all the soteriology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Here again the influence of St. Athanasius is evident. Like Athanasius, St. Cyril admits that incarnation and life among people would be enough if the Savior had to be only a Teacher to set an example. But it was necessary to destroy death, and therefore the sacrifice of the Cross and death were needed, death for us and for us, and death for all. The angels themselves are sanctified by the merits of the Incarnate Word. For Christ is the source of all holiness and life, the great Advocate and Mediator, and the New Adam, the firstfruits and root of regenerated humanity, returning to its original state. Redemption is strengthened by the resurrection, which bears witness to the divinity of Christ and affirms the hope of our resurrection. The Incarnation begins the historical Dispensation, in fulfillment of the prophecies and the fate of God. But it is fulfilled in death. And St. Cyril emphasizes that the death of Christ is redemption precisely because it is the death of the God-man or, as he puts it, "the death of God according to the flesh." Only the Incarnate Word could be a real "hierarch and messenger of our confession" (cf. Heb. 3:1). “The Son of God, deigning to descend to exhaustion, accepts from the Father a calling to the priesthood, which is proper not to the divine nature, but to the human nature, according to which He, having become like us, experiences all that is characteristic of it, without suffering anything by divinity, but assimilating everything perfected by mankind according to dispensation." The Word functions sacredly "according to the perceived human nature," - and not the Word itself "was set for priesthood and in human measures before incarnation," - but it is precisely the Word that functions sacramentally ... "If anyone says that our hierarch and messenger was not God the Word himself, when he became incarnate and became a man like us, but as if some man different from him from his wife, or who says that He offered himself as an offering and for Himself, and not for us alone, - after all, not knowing sin , He did not need an offering - an anathema." This Xth of Cyril's anathematisms forms one of the focuses of his anti-Nestorian polemics. Anathematism XIIth is associated with it: "Whoever does not confess that God the Word suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh , tasted death in the flesh and became the firstborn from the dead, since He is Life and Life-giving, like God, is anathema. "The edge of these denials is turned against the idea of ​​human priesthood and sacrifice . The death of a person cannot be sufficient, and human sacrifice has no redeeming power - this is what St. Cyril seeks to say. Salvation is not from people, not from human works, but only from God. This is the basis of kenosis, condescension and humiliation of the Word. And at the same time, the purification of human nature through sacrifice was to take place... “Suffering was supposed to bring salvation to the world,” says St. Cyril, “but the Word, born of the Father, could not suffer in its own art, assimilates a body capable of suffering, which is why it is called the Affected Flesh, subject to suffering, remaining in the Divine without suffering "... After all, Scripture calls the Savior the same Who created everything - through Him everything is reconciled with the Father and "pacified by the blood of His Cross "... "Into whose death were we baptized? In whose resurrection are we also justified by faith?" - asks St. Cyril. "Are we baptized into the death of an ordinary person? And through faith in him we receive justification?"... And he answers: of course not, - "but we proclaim the death of God incarnate"... This means: in saving passion, death and sacrifice, for us, the condescension of God, and not the heroism or self-exaltation of man. This condescension or "kenosis" does not, of course, mean that the Divine is diminished and subjected to suffering—St. Cyril resolutely rejects such kenotism, and the "Easterners" wrongly suspected and reproached him for transferring suffering to the Divine. On the contrary, he always emphasizes that suffering belongs to the flesh - only the flesh is suffering and pleasurable; and, therefore, only suffering "according to the flesh" can be "actual." But at the same time, St. Cyril affirms the inseparability (of course, not indistinguishability) of the "flesh" from the Divine. Sufferings were committed in humanity and in human nature, but these were not the sufferings of a "man," an independent human person. In all his anathematisms, St. Cyril speaks precisely of this. With particular sharpness in the fourth anathematism: “Who distributes the gospel and apostolic sayings spoken about Christ by Himself or by the saints between two persons or hypostases, and refers some of them to a person thought separately from the Word of God the Father, and others as godly, to the one Word of God the Father - anathema. First of all, such a division denies the reality of humiliation or exhaustion - "for where is the Word reduced to itself, if it is ashamed of human measures." Again, this does not mean the transfer of what is said about humanity to the Divine, it does not mean a mixture of natures - but "both those and other words refer to one Jesus Christ"... For, Saint Cyril remarks, "we know that the Word of God the Father is not incorporeal after the inexpressible union"... And one should not speak of the Incarnate Word in the same way as the Word before the Incarnation, although the Incarnation does not change, the Divinity does not change Words After the incarnation, says Carill, "everything belongs to Him, both Divine and human" ... And at the same time, the "greatness of glory" is not diminished by the "measure of exhaustion" ... In other words, the difference in natures does not mean the division of "persons or "hypostases," - about the One, the inseparably twofold affect, but precisely about the same. “We do not eliminate the differences of speech,” says St. Cyril, “but does not distribute them between two persons "... One Christ is the Incarnate Word, and not "a God-bearing man" (anathem. V); "One with his flesh," i.e. both God and man (anathem. II); - and this is the "essential "or natural unity," ένωσις φυσική, ΰ not only a bond of honor, power and strength (anathem. III). “We say,” St. Cyril explained, “that one should not call Christ a God-bearing man, so as not to represent him as one of the saints, but as true God, the incarnate and incarnated Word of God ... The Word became flesh ... And as soon as it became flesh, i.e. man, that is not a God-bearing man, but God, according to His will, gives Himself over to exhaustion and takes ownership of the flesh taken from the woman "... Therefore, in fact, Christ, i.e. The Anointed One is called the Word itself in measure and by virtue of His union with the anointed humanity, and no one else... Glorifying his humanity, the Word glorifies Himself, and not another. Saint Cyril sharply expresses this thought in two anathematisms: “Whoever says that the Word of God the Father is God or the Lord of Christ, and does not confess the same God together with man, since the Word was flesh according to the Scriptures, is anathema”... (VI) . "Whoever says that Jesus, as a man, was the instrument of God the Word, and is surrounded by the glory of the Only Begotten, as different from Him, is anathema" (VII). And he further strengthens this thought in the ninth anathematism: “Whoever says that the only Lord Jesus Christ is glorified by the Spirit, as if using a power alien to Him, and from Him received the power to overcome unclean spirits and perform Divine signs in people, and does not honor the Spirit, To whom He performed miracles, His own, is anathema "... The emphasis here is on the opposite: "alien" and "own." For people, the Spirit is "alien," coming to us from God. This cannot be said about Christ, "for the Holy Spirit belongs to Him (ie, to God the Word), as well as to God the Father," because of the identity of the being. And the Word acts through the Spirit, just as the Father... He Himself performs Divine signs by the Spirit, as an owner, and not in such a way that the power of the Holy Spirit acts in Him, as His highest... This is the decisive difference between Christ and holy people. From here St. Cyril draws conclusions. Firstly, it is necessary to confess the Blessed Virgin Mary (anathem. I), because She gave birth to the incarnate Word in the flesh, gave birth "not to the beginning of being, but so that He, having become like us, would deliver us from death and corruption. " And the Word is born from the Virgin, and no one else, - "not through a change in the essence, but through union with the visible flesh" ... "To the Incarnate Word (anathem. VIII). And, thirdly, the flesh of Christ was life-giving flesh (anathem. XI). This also applies to the Holy Eucharist, where we glorify the flesh and blood of not an ordinary person like us, but our own body and blood of the Word, which gives life to all... This does not weaken the consubstantial flesh of Christ and ours, but, since the Word is Life according to nature, it makes life-giving and its own flesh... Through union and assimilation with the Word, the body becomes the "body of life"... And in this sense, it is extraordinary... At the same time, "animate and rational flesh" is understood. This is the whole meaning of Eucharistic communion, in which we are united with God the Word, who became for us and acted like the Son of man.

Through all the anathematisms of St. Cyril runs a single and living dogmatic thread: he confesses unified Christ the unity of the Face, the unity of life.

4. The terminology of St. Cyril was not distinguished by clarity and uniformity. Often he was ready to speak in a foreign language. For him, words are always only means. And he demands and expects from his listeners and readers that through words and through words they will ascend to contemplation. This does not mean that he confuses concepts, that his thought is double or wavering. On the contrary, in his confession of Saint Cyril is always firm, direct, and even almost stubborn. This is connected with his well-known verbosity, excess in terminology. He accumulates synonyms, brings too many images and similarities. In no case should its theological language be too systematized and stylized. In Christological usage, St. Cyril usually does not distinguish between the terms: φύσις, ύπόστασις, πρόσωπξν, θ uses them one next to the other or one together with the other, as obvious synonyms. All these terms in St. Cyril mean one thing: concrete individuality, living and concrete unity, "personality." This does not prevent him in some cases from using them in a different sense, talking about the "nature of man" in Christ, distinguishing "hypostasis" from "person" and using the term "hypostasis" in a direct and broad non-terminological sense. In such a broad sense, he uses it in the well-known and disputed expression of anathematisms: ένωσις καθ" ύπόστασιν. Θ, moreover, to designate the same fact, which he defines as "natural unity," and to which he relates the alleged Athanasian Appolinarian formula: μία φύσις St. Cyril often fails to notice that his words sound stronger, say more than he wants to say. "Unity for him means only "complete union" and "true unity," as opposed to only moral or conceivable "relative contact" (συνάφεια σχετική) of Νestoria and other "Eastern." In this sense, Cyril himself, in response to Theodoret, explained the expression: καθ " ύπόστασιν, - ξbut means "nothing else but that the nature or hypostasis of the Word (which means the Word itself) truly(indeed, κατ "άληθείαν) united with human nature without any transformation or change, ... and it is thought and is the one Christ, God and man," - "The Only Begotten Son Himself through the perception of flesh ... became a true man, so that he remains and true God"... "Natural union" is a "true" unity, i.e. not mixing and merging natures in such a way that they need to "exist otherwise than without combination." The main task for St. Cyril is always to exclude any isolation of humanity in Christ into some kind of independent existence. He seeks to affirm the truth of unity; in his mouth, μία φύσις ξ means the unity of God-human existence or God-human life. In its fullness, this unity and the image of union are unknown and inexpressible. It can only be partly defined. The first thing to emphasize here is that the connection begins from the very conception of the Blessed Virgin. Man was not conceived first, and the Word descended upon Him. But the flesh of the descended Word was conceived, with which It is united, and which did not exist for the slightest moment by itself (ίδικώς). This union is not a combination of two pre-existing ones - it was the "reception" into ownership and unity with the Word of a newly emerging human "quality" (poιότης φυσική), - it is only logically possible to imagine the humanity of Christ before the union. And at the same time, the unity of Christ is not in the understanding of Saint Cyril consequence Incarnations or connections. Embodiment is perception. And St. Cyril seeks to clarify that the perception of mankind does not violate the unity of the hypostasis of the Incarnate Word. The hypostasis or person of the Word in the incarnation (Λόγξς ένσαρκξς), as well as outside the incarnation (Λόγξς άσαρκξς) remains unchanged and unified. In this sense, the conjunction is "hypostasic," for humanity is accepted into the eternal hypostasis of the Word. Connection is "natural," for humanity is inexpressibly connected with nature itself and the person of the Word. Speaking of the single "nature" of the Incarnate Word, St. Cyril does not in the least belittle the fullness of mankind. He denies only the "self-reliance" or independence of mankind. Human nature in Christ is not something "about Itself" (καθ" έαυτήν). But humanity, perceived by the Word, is complete humanity, and in Christ two "natural qualities" or "two perfect" (i.e., complete beings), each " in its natural property" (ό τξϋ πώς είναι λόγξς) The fullness of humanity is not impaired by union, is not absorbed by the Divine, or no change occurs at all. Christ possesses in his unity a twofold consubstantial - He is consubstantial with mother and Father ... True, a saint Cyril in general avoids talking about humanity in Christ as about nature, or about two natures, and prefers to talk about the "properties of nature." But only because φύσις ξn understands in this case as ύπόστασις (ς.e., as a self-sufficient individual ), and not because he in any way diminishes or limits human nature itself.Therefore, he could not hesitate to sign the formula of conjunction, which spoke of "two natures," since, by the connection of the text, the unacceptable p understanding of this expression. Therefore, in other cases, he could speak of the union of "two natures"... The difference between "nature" (ίδιότης ή κατά φύσιν) for St. Cyril always remained very sharp, and therefore he emphasized that the union was wonderful and incomprehensible. And as an unknown mystery of the Divine descent to people, it is revealed in the historical person of Christ, captured in the Gospel. St. Cyril clearly distinguishes between the concepts of "distinction" and "separation." It is not necessary to separate the two in Christ, but only to distinguish, that is, to distinguish mentally or logically For the unity of the “heterogeneous” in Christ is indissoluble and indissoluble, ένωσις άναγκαιοτάτη... “Therefore,” Saint Cyril explained, “if after the inexpressible union you call Immanuel God, we will understand the Word of God the Father, incarnate and incarnate. If you also call him a man, nevertheless we mean Him, who was housed economically in the measure of humanity. We say that the Untouchable became tangible, the Invisible - visible, for the body connected with Him, which we call tangible and visible, was not alien to Him "... St. . subject) should refer both what is said according to the Divine and what is said according to humanity to a single hypostasis of the Incarnate Word. The Word suffers, but the flesh; however, the own flesh of the Word, there was no "theopaschitism" in Saint Cyril.

The theological thought of St. Cyril is always perfectly clear. But he could not find a complete expression for it. This is the main reason for the long disputes and misunderstandings with the East. The formula of unity was compiled in "Antiochian" expressions; it did not include the favorite expressions of St. Cyril. Instead of a "single nature," it speaks of a "single person" of two and two natures... And at the same time, the further development of Orthodox Christology proceeded in the spirit and in the style of St. unity, how much to explain its non-confluence, reveals, as it were, its measures and limits. However, already the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon asserted emphatically that they contained "the faith of Cyril." And the same thing happened later. This was not hindered, but rather facilitated by the fact that genuine Monophysites persistently disputed with the Orthodox the right to Cyril's heritage and succession. Cyril's formulas were abandoned, but his strength was not in the formulas, but in his living contemplation, which unfolded in him into an integral Christological system. Saint Cyril was a creative theologian of great style, the last of the great Alexandrians.

Cyril of Alexandria was born and raised in Alexandria as a member of a famous episcopal dynasty. His uncle was Theophilus of Alexandria, after whom he became primate in 412.

One of the first to denounce the heresy of Nestorius, was the organizer and main character of the III Ecumenical Council in Ephesus. He owns numerous polemical works that refute the Nestorian doctrine of Christ. St. Cyril was the first to formulate the doctrine of the unity of the hypostasis of the Savior, which was interpreted by the future Monophysites as the affirmation of the unity of His essence. He also owns interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, explanations of the doctrine of the Trinity, a number of letters of theological content.

In addition to church activities, he had great influence on the secular power of Alexandria. Therefore, his name is associated with episodes of numerous conflicts between pagans and Christians. Among the urban population and monastics, he enjoyed unquestioned authority, and after his death he was remembered well.

Saint Cyril ruled the Church of Alexandria for 32 years: by the end of his fruitful activity, the flock was cleansed of heretics.

Saint Cyril died in 444, leaving many creations. Of particular note are the Commentaries on the Gospels of Luke, John, the Epistles of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians and the Hebrews, as well as an apology in defense of Christianity against the emperor Julian the Apostate (361-363). Of great importance are the five books against Nestorius, the work on the Most Holy Trinity, entitled "Treasure", written against Arius and Eunomius, and two dogmatic works on the Most Holy Trinity, which are distinguished by the accuracy of the presentation of the Orthodox teaching on the Descent of the Holy Spirit. The essay against anthropomorphism was written by St. Cyril for some Egyptians, who unknowingly represented God in human form. Among the works of St. Cyril there are also “Conversations”, among which the “Word on the Exodus of the Soul”, placed in the Slavic “Investigated Psalter”, is especially touching and instructive.

CREATIONS

exegetical

Despite the fact that St. Cyril had to write a lot against his enemies, the main part of his legacy is not polemical, but exegetical treatises. St. Cyril was a brilliant commentator on the Bible and followed the allegorical method in his interpretations, which puts him on a par with Origen and other Alexandrians. However, unlike Origen, he considered not all the details of the Old Testament history to be of spiritual significance. He paid little attention to the historical and philological analysis of the text, but in his interpretations there is always a controversy with heretics.

17 books On Worship and Service in Spirit and Truth, written in the form of dialogues between St. Cyril and Palladius, are an allegorical explanation of individual places of the Pentateuch, chosen not in the order in which they are in the Bible, but in the one that is most convenient for the author to confirm his main idea. St. Cyril proves that the letter of the law has been abolished, but the spirit has not, and therefore the interpretation of the Old Testament texts should not be literal, but allegorical. In the 1st book of St. Cyril speaks of the deliverance of man from slavery to sin and the devil, in the 2nd and 3rd - about justification through Christ, in 4-5 - about the human will, in 6-8 - about love for God and neighbor, in 9-13 - on the Church and the priesthood, in 14-16 - on the spiritual worship of Christians, and on the 17th - on Jewish holidays, especially Easter. The treatise was written after the episcopal consecration of St. Cyril, but before the start of the anti-Nestorian controversy (412 - 429).

13 books of Skillful Interpretations (“Glafira”) were written in the same period of the life of the saint and also contain an explanation of selected passages from the Pentateuch, however, in the order they are found in the Bible. In book. 1-7 discusses Genesis, 8-10 Exodus, 11 Leviticus, 12 Numbers, 13 Deuteronomy.

The interpretation of the prophet Isaiah was written, most likely, after the exegetical works on the Pentateuch, but before 429 and consists of five books. St. Cyril offers the reader a "double" interpretation, including "history", that is, the literal meaning of the text, and "theory" - its allegorical explanation.

The interpretation of the twelve prophets consists of 12 parts, divided into volumes. After an extensive introduction in which St. Cyril points to previous exegetes, his own interpretation follows, and each book is preceded by its own preface.

In the Catenas on the Old Testament, fragments from other interpretations of St. Cyril: on the books of Kings, Psalms and Bible songs, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. Fragments of the interpretation of St. Cyril on Ezekiel are preserved in an Armenian manuscript kept at Oxford University (Bodleian Library). About the comments of St. Cyril is mentioned in psalms by Patriarch Photius (Library, No. 229). There are references in the literature to other biblical works of St. Cyril, which have not reached us.
From the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew written by St. Cyril scrap after 428, only a few fragments survive. This interpretation was known to Leontius of Byzantium, Ephraim of Antioch and Facundus of Hermia.

The collection of Discourses on Luke the Evangelist has been preserved in the Syriac version of the 6th-7th centuries. , which includes 156 conversations, while in Greek only three conversations and some fragments have survived. The discourses contain a pronounced anti-Nestorian controversy, and reference to anathematisms shows that these discourses were delivered around 430 BC.

Of the 12 books of Interpretations on John the Evangelist, 10 books (1-6, 9 - 12) have been preserved in their entirety, and two (7 and 8) - in fragments, the authenticity of which is doubtful. Commentary of St. Cyril is dogmatic-polemical in nature, as the author points out in the introduction. St. Cyril finds evidence in the Gospel of John of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, refuting the teachings of the Arians and Eunomians, as well as the Christology of the Antiochian school. The name Nestorius, as well as the term "Mother of God" are missing in the interpretation, so it is assumed that it was compiled before 429.

Dogmatic-polemical and apologetic

The early dogmatic-polemical works of St. Cyril directed against the Arians. Treatise Treasure, on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, was written presumably at the beginning of the bishopric of St. Cyril, no later than 425. The treatise consists of 35 chapters. In triadology, St. Cyril follows his predecessor, St. Athanasius. Part of the treatise is a reproduction of the 3rd book of St. Athanasius "Against the Arians". As one of the sources of St. Cyril uses the book of Didymus "Against Eunomius".

Treatise on the Holy and Life-Giving Trinity written shortly after The Treasure and is a revision of the latter. The treatise is dedicated to the "brother" Nemesius and consists of seven dialogues between the author and his friend Hermias: in six dialogues it is about the Son, in the seventh - about the Holy Spirit.
The first anti-Nestorian treatise, Five Books Against Nestorius, was written around 430. It is a critical analysis of a collection of sermons published by Nestorius the previous year. The name of Nestorius is not mentioned in the text, but quotes from his works are given. In the first book of St. Cyril analyzes the places in which Nestorius speaks out against calling Mary the Mother of God; four other books deal with the two natures of Christ.

Treatise on Right Faith written in 430, consists of three letters sent to St. Cyril to the imperial palace about the Nestorian heresy. The first is addressed to Tsar Theodosius, the other two - to the queens (without giving names). According to John of Caesarea (6th century), the second epistle is addressed to the younger sisters of the emperor - Arcadia and Marina, and the third - to the elder sister Pulcheria and wife of the emperor Eudoxia.

Twelve anathematisms against Nestorius written in the same 430 on behalf of the Council in Alexandria.
St. Cyril was forced to defend his anathematisms in three apologies. The first is called the Defense of the Twelve Chapters against the Bishops of the East and is directed against Andrew of Samosata, who accused St. Cyril in Apollinarianism and Monophysitism. From the accusations of Theodoret of Cyrus, St. Cyril defends himself in a Letter to Euoptius, Bishop of Ptolemand of Libya, from whom he received the text of Theodoret's work against anathematism. Both treatises were written before the Third Ecumenical Council. The third treatise in defense of anathematism, entitled Explanation of the Twelve Chapters, was written in the Ephesian prison, where St. Cyril was in August - September 431 after the III Ecumenical Council.

Protective word to Tsar Theodosius was written by St. Cyril immediately after his return from Ephesus to Alexandria. In the Word he defends his actions before and during the Council of Ephesus.

Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten written after 431: in them St. Cyril gives an explanation of the names Christ, Emmanuel and Jesus, after which he defends the hypostatic unity of natures, refuting the opinions about "mixing" and "connection" between them. Essay against the Apollinarians. The full text has been preserved in Latin, Syriac and Armenian versions; of the Greek original, only a fraction has survived.

In dialogue That there is only one Christ St. Cyril refutes the teaching that the Word of God did not become flesh, but united with the man Jesus, so that the honor of the First does not belong to the Second. St. Cyril refers to his early controversy with Nestorius and demonstrates such a maturity of thought that the dialogue, highly valued in antiquity, seems to be one of the later works of St. Cyril. Kirill.

Small Book against those who do not want to recognize the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God continues the anti-Nestorian controversy. This treatise, as a genuine work of St. Cyril in 542 was referred to by the emperor Justinian in his “Sermon against the Monophysites”.

In the treatise Against Diodorus and Theodore St. Cyril refutes the doctrine of the teachers of Nestorius - Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. The treatise consists of three books: the 1st is dedicated to Diodorus, the 2nd and 3rd - to Theodore. The treatise was written around 438. Fragments have been preserved in Greek and Latin versions. Also preserved in fragments is a treatise Against Anthropomorphites.

Treatise Against Sinusiasts, i.e., against the extreme Apollinarians (“sinusia” - the coexistence of two natures) was written in the late period of the life of the saint and has been preserved in fragments in Greek and Syriac.

Monumental apologetic writing On the Holy Religion of the Christian against the Godless Julian written in the period between 433 and 441, i.e. after reconciliation with John of Antioch, but before the death of the latter, since from the 83rd letter of bl. Theodoret makes it clear that St. Cyril sent this essay to John. It is dedicated to Emperor Theodosius II and contains a refutation of the treatises of Julian the Apostate Against the Galileans. Julian in 363 published three treatises under this title. Foreword by St. Cyril shows that paganism in his time was still strong and Julian's treatises with accusations against Christians were popular. Only the first ten books of St. Cyril, where he analyzes the 1st treatise of Julian and talks about the connections between Christianity, Judaism and paganism. Fragments from books 11 and 20, which have come down in Greek and Syriac versions, show that books 11-20 dealt with the second treatise of Julian. J. Newman suggests that in subsequent books of St. Cyril refuted the 3rd treatise of Julian and in total there were about 30 books in his work. However, nothing has survived from the alleged books 21-30: it is possible that St. Cyril did not mean to refute all of Julian's treatises, but limited himself to only the first two (Quasten J., p. 129-130).

Easter messages

Like their predecessors - ev. Athanasius, Peter and Theophilus of Alexandria, St. Cyril annually addressed his flock with a message regarding the date of the celebration of Easter. The publishers of the writings of St. Cyril collected 29 messages under the general title Easter conversations. They were written between 414 and 442. and devoted primarily to moral and ascetic topics: fasting and abstinence, vigil and prayer, charity and mercy. Dogmatic questions are also discussed: in Conversations 5, 8, 17 and 27 St. Cyril defends the doctrine of the Incarnation against the Arians and other heretics who deny the eternity of the Son; Conversation 12 speaks of the Holy Trinity. Many conversations contain polemics with Jews and Gentiles.

Conversations

From the sermons delivered by St. Cyril during his episcopal ministry in Alexandria, no more than 22 have survived, some of which have survived in fragments. The publishers called them Other Discourses as opposed to Easter Discourses (messages). The first eight talks were delivered in Ephesus during the work of the III Ecumenical Council. Of these, the 1st was pronounced at the beginning of the work of the Council, the 2nd - on the feast day of the Apostle John the Theologian, the 5th - after the condemnation of Nestorius, the 6th - after the break with John of Antioch, the 7th - before the arrest. The 4th discourse, Laudable to St. Mary the Mother of God, delivered between June 23 and 27, 431 in the church of the Most Holy Theotokos in Ephesus, is the most famous sermon in antiquity dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary: St. Cyril calls Her "the inextinguishable lamp", "the crown of virginity", "the scepter of Orthodoxy", "the indestructible temple", "the receptacle of the Incapable" - some of these expressions subsequently entered the Akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos. Conversations 3, 15, 16 and 20 deal with the Incarnation of the Son of God. Discourse 10, On the Last Supper, probably belongs to Theophilus of Alexandria; The 11th is nothing more than the 4th conversation, expanded and supplemented in the 7th-9th centuries. The 13th, In the Week of Vai, goes back to Eulogy of Alexandria. The famous 14th discourse, On the Exodus of the Soul from the Body and on the Second Coming of Christ, which was especially popular in the Middle Ages (it was placed in the Slavic Followed Psalter), is a work of dubious authenticity: in the Apophtegmas of the Fathers it is mentioned as the work of Theophilus of Alexandria. The 8th Conversation, On the Transfiguration of the Lord, and the 12th, On the Presentation of the Lord, belong to the corpus of Conversations on the Gospel of Luke (see above).

Letters

Collection of letters from St. Cyril, printed in Min's Patrology, includes 88 letters, of which 17 are letters from others addressed to him, and some are forged. Most of the letters of St. Cyril date from the time after the Council of Ephesus. For the history of relations between East and West, the correspondence of St. Cyril with Popes Celestine and Sixtus. To the letters of St. Cyril was subsequently referred to by the Ecumenical Councils: letter 4, the second to Nestorius, was read out at the III, IV and V Ecumenical Councils. Letter 17, the third to Nestorius, contains a description of the acts of the Council of Alexandria in 430. In letter 39, to John of Antioch, St. Cyril expresses joy at the reconciliation that took place: it begins with the words "Let the heavens rejoice." The three indicated letters (4, 17, 39), due to their dogmatic significance, received the name "ecumenical". Letter 76 contains the refusal of St. Cyril to enter the name of John Chrysostom in the diptychs. Letter 80, Hypatia to Cyril, is forged, as well as 86 - Cyril to Pope Leonty.

Liturgy of St. Cyril of Alexandria

in the name of St. Cyril is one of the liturgies used in the Coptic Church. The Greek text of this liturgy is unknown, and since St. Cyril did not write in Coptic; its belonging to this saint is excluded. The liturgy consists of an anaphora, similar in content to the so-called anaphora of the Apostle Mark. It has been suggested that the Coptic Liturgy of St. Cyril is nothing but the Coptic version of the anaphora of the Apostle Mark. But the question of the origin of the liturgy of St. Cyril of Alexandria has not been fully studied (see: Archim. Cyprian Kern. The Eucharist. Paris. S. 99 - 100).

Troparion to Saint Cyril of Alexandria, tone 8

Orthodox mentor, / piety to the teacher and purity, / universal lamp, / divinely inspired fertilizer of the bishops, / Cyril the wise, / with your teachings you have enlightened all, / spiritual forger, / pray to Christ God to be saved to our souls.

Kontakion to Saint Cyril of Alexandria, tone 6

The abyss of the teachings of theology has been exuded for us / to reality from the source of the Spasovs, / plunging heresy, / blessed Cyril, / and saving the herd unscathed from disturbances, / mentor to all countries, reverend, / like the Divine.