Byzantine Fathers of the V-VIII centuries

11. In the dogmatic disputes of the fifth and sixth centuries, the question of the significance of theological traditions was raised very sharply. The teaching of the Church is unchangeable; Therefore, an argument from antiquity, a reference to the past, has a special evidentiary value. And patristic testimonies are cited at this time and are taken into account in theological disputes with special attention. It was at this time that collections and collections of patristic texts were compiled. However, at the same time, the need for a critical attitude to the past is revealed. Not all historical legends can be accepted. For the first time this question arose in the fourth century, in connection with the teaching of Origen. But the overcoming of Origenism in Trinitarian theology was accomplished almost silently, and the name of Origen was mentioned very rarely. The question of the Antiochian tradition turned out differently. In the Nestorian controversies, suspicion fell on the entire theological past of the East. And in answer the opposite question was asked, about the Alexandrian traditions. With the passage of time, the need for a critical synthesis and revision of traditions became more and more obvious. And in the time of Justinian, the first attempt was made to sum up the historical results. This is precisely the meaning of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). It was convened for the judgment of the "three chapters," i.e., in essence, for the judgment of Antiochian theology. But it was no accident that a more general question was raised at the council, On the "chosen fathers" (έγκριτоι πατέρες). The list of the Fathers was suggested by the emperor in his letter, read at the opening of the council, and it was repeated at the third meeting of the council. This list explains the general and vague reference: "according to the teaching of the Fathers", "following the teaching of the Holy Fathers"... The names were named: Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, both Gregories, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Theophilus and Cyril, Proclus, Pope Leo. There is a certain intention in the choice of names. Of course, the Westerners were named for the sake of the Westerners, for they had never had a sensible influence in the East, and little was known about them there. But it is characteristic that of the "Eastern" only Chrysostom was named (in the paradoxical neighborhood of Theophilus!). This was already the trial of Vostok. The names of the great fathers of the fourth century do not require explanation. But there was a new poignancy in the enumeration of the Alexandrians: Theophilus, Cyril – the name of Proclus is also attached to this (of course, his "scroll to the Armenians"). This list reflects not only Justinian's personal tastes or sympathies. It is typical for the entire era. And Justinian himself only expressed the prevailing mood. He was not an innovator. He summed up the results. He strove to build and complete an integral system of Christian culture and life. This plan has its own greatness, and there is its own great untruth. In any case, Justinian always thought more about the Christian Kingdom than about the Church. His pathos was that the whole world should become Christian, the whole "inhabited earth," γή oίκоυμένη. In this he saw his calling, the sacred and theocratic calling of the universal Christian king. In his eyes, this calling was a special gift of God, a second gift independent of the priesthood. It is the tsar who is called upon to implement the system of Christian culture. In many ways, Justinian forcibly preempted events. He was in a hurry to complete the construction. This explains his unionist policy, his desire to restore the universal unity of the faith, which was broken after the Council of Chalcedon. Related to this is his interference in theological disputes in general. Justinian did not tolerate disagreements. And in disputes for the sake of unity, he more than once turned from a "most Christian sovereign" almost into Diocletian (a comparison of Pope Agapit in 536). Too often, the synthesis has degenerated into a violent and fruitless compromise. There are many tragic pages in the history of the Fifth Council, especially in its prehistory. It is partly true that the question of the "three chapters" arose almost by accident, that the controversy about the Antiochian traditions was initiated or revived artificially. Justinian had his own tactical motives for issuing the famous edict of 544. Contemporaries asserted that this edict was prompted and even composed by the Palestinian Origenists (Theodore Askida), in the hope of diverting attention from themselves. Such an explanation is too simple... The edict had "three chapters" — about Theodore of Mopeuestia and his books; on the objections of Theodoret against St. Cyril; about the "impious" letter to Marius Persus, known under the name of Ives of Edessa. The emperor proposed to anathematize them. The edict caused great excitement everywhere. It seemed to have been published in favor of the Monophysites. It was seen as a hidden condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon, although the emperor directly anathematized those who would interpret its "chapters" in this sense... The indignation was especially violent in Africa, in the West in general... The opponents of the edict did not so much defend the Antiochians as they considered the edict itself untimely and dangerous in practice. Is it convenient to revise and correct the decisions of previous councils? And a general question arose: is it possible at all to posthumously condemn brothers who have reposed in the world; have they not already been taken away from all human judgment, having been brought before the judgment of God? The supporters of the edict seemed to be "persecutors of the dead" ("necroioctes"). This is what was argued about the most. It was the Western ones who persisted. Pope Vigilius hesitated in confusion between the will of the emperor and the opinion of his Church. The dispute dragged on for many years. The emperor insisted on his own, and at times, indeed, he was transformed almost into Diocletian. In 551 he published a new "Confession" against the "three chapters", with 13 anathemas. Finally, in the year 553, the Ecumenical Council convened. It was not easy to induce the Western bishops, who had already gathered in Constantinople, to appear at the council... And the decrees of the council in the West were adopted only after a long and stubborn struggle... The Council recognized the possibility of posthumous condemnation, agreed with the arguments of the emperor and issued 14 anathemas, in which most of the anathemas of 551 were repeated. The decision was preceded by a detailed analysis of the suspected theological monuments and a comparison of them with indisputable examples of the Orthodox faith. The dangerous inaccuracy of the Antiochian books was clearly revealed. In a sense, this was a revision of the question of the Council of Ephesus, not of Chalcedon. One could argue about the timeliness of such a revision. It seemed to many that there was no need for this, that psychologically it could be beneficial only to the Monophysites. There seemed to be no need to fight the Nestorian danger when the danger was threatening from the opposite side. All these arguments were of a practical nature and the objectors did not go beyond formal rejections. But, whatever the motives that inclined Justinian to raise the question of the "three chapters", in essence he was right. That is why the Council accepted his anathemas. They refute and condemn in detail Nestorianism, but at the same time the false teachings of Apollinaris and Eutyches... It was a solemn confirmation of the Council of Ephesus and a new sentence on the "Easterners." It is very characteristic that Origenism was also condemned at the Council. The initiative of condemnation again belonged to the emperor. As early as 543, he issued 10 anathemas against Origen and all those who defend his impure opinions. This edict was adopted in Constantinople, in Palestine, and in Rome. Before the council, Justinian addressed the bishops with a new epistle about Origen. Apparently, the condemnation of Origen was proclaimed by the assembled fathers before the official opening of the council; That is why it is not mentioned in the Council's Acts. However, it is included in the anathemas of the council (anath. 11; cf. Trull. 1); and during the council itself it is mentioned by Theodore Askida. Soon after the council, Cyril of Scythopolis reports on the condemnation of Origen and the Origenists in his Life of Sava the Sanctified, and directly assimilates it to the Ecumenical Council. In addition to Origen, Didymus and Evagrius were condemned. Certain "impious opinions" expressed by Origen himself or his followers were condemned. The condemnation referred primarily to the Palestinian Origenists, who disturbed the peace in the monasteries there. As early as 542 they had already been condemned by Pat. Ephraim at the local council in Antioch. Even earlier, Antipater, bishop of Bostra (in Arabia), wrote against the Origenists. Palestinian Origenism was connected with Syriac (cf. Bar-Sudaili)... In his edicts, Justinian only repeated the accusations made from the localities. Shortly before the council, a special embassy arrived in Constantinople from the Lavra of the Monk Sava, with the hegumen Konon at its head; the monks presented a special report to the emperor with an exposition of "all impiety"... It is difficult to say how accurately Origen was quoted by his accusers. In any case, the opinions condemned do follow from its premises. The edict of 543 condemns the doctrine of pre-existence and the transmigration of souls, the doctrine of the eternal soul of Jesus, which had already been united with the Divine Logos before His incarnation, the doctrine that He was not only man for the sake of men, but also a seraphim for the seraphim, that He would one day be crucified for demons, the doctrine of apocatastasis, etc. More details in the epistle of the year 552. Here is an outline of the whole system. Its basic idea is that everything from eternity was created in perfect spirituality, and through falling away the present heterogeneous and corporeal world arose; The world process will end with the universal restoration and complete disembodiment of all that exists. This is Origen's own scheme. We can say for sure what attracted the Origenists of the sixth century in Origen's system. Cyril of Scythopolis tells about the division of the Palestinian Origenists into Isochrists and Protoctists. The names are very transparent. The Isochrists asserted that in the universal restoration all would be "equal to Christ" (ίσоι τώ Χριστώ), and this conclusion does follow directly from Origen's anthropological and Christological premises. The protoctists seem to have spoken not so much of apocatastasis as of pre-existence, and, above all, of the pre-existence of the soul of Jesus as the "first creation" (πρώτоν κτίσμα)... It is not difficult to understand why these ideas could spread in the monastic milieu; from them naturally follow conclusions of a practical nature about the paths of ascetic achievement... Again, it was possible to argue whether the question of Origen should be raised at an Ecumenical Council; but Origen's untruth was beyond doubt... The condemnation of the Origenisms at the Fifth Council was a condemnation of the inner temptations of the old Alexandrian theology, which had not yet lost its influence in certain and fairly wide circles. The prohibitions of the Fifth Council meant a judgment on the mistakes of the past. They testify to a turning point in theological consciousness. The Antiochian and Alexandrian traditions are interrupted. The Byzantine era began. 12. In the VI and VII centuries, church culture crystallizes. The enduring symbol of this epoch is the great temple of Wisdom, the Everlasting Word, in Constantinople. Creative tension is felt in some depths. It is clearer in asceticism than in theology. But out of the new ascetic experience is born a new theological synthesis, a new system. It is revealed to us in the works of St. Maximus. It is he, and not Damascene, who sums up the creative results of early Byzantine theology. This explains its powerful influence in the following centuries... Once again, the contradiction between the Empire and the Desert escalates. With catastrophic force it is exposed in the iconoclastic turmoil. A theocratic synthesis in the style of Justinian proved ambiguous and premature. And it falls apart. In this sense, the iconoclastic movement closes the era of early Byzantinism. But in persecution and in martyrdom, the dawn of a new life is already dawning...

I. Life

Part 1

1. Very little is known about the life of St. Cyril before his accession to the Alexandrian cathedra. 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 IV century. Judging by the works of Saint Cyril, he received a broad and complete education. He is 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 wilderness solitude. In the year 403 he accompanied Theophilus to the famous council "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, it was not without "popular confusion" and the intervention of military force was required. 2. And little is known about the first years of the bishopric of St. Cyril, before the beginning of the Nestorian disputes. Unpeaceful 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 much power from the rulers appointed by the king." In the disagreement between the bishop and the prefect, the Nitrian monks intervened, and they intervened very unsuccessfully. The prefect was attacked, he barely escaped from the dump. One of the attacking monks was subjected to a cruel punishment, from which he died. The archbishop gave his body over to an honorable burial, as a martyr for piety. "Modest people," says Socrates, "did not approve of this Cyril's zeal, for they knew that Ammonius was punished for his folly and died in agony not because he was forced to renounce Christ"... In his temperament, Saint Cyril was a man of struggle. And on the episcopal cathedra, he immediately showed himself as a passionate and authoritative man. Immediately he entered into a struggle with the Novatians, locked up all the Novatian churches located in Alexandria, took away from them the sacred utensils, and deprived their bishop Theopemptus of everything he had; At the same time, he took advantage of the allowance of the secular authorities. To the very first years of the episcopate of Saint Cyril belongs his struggle with the Jews of Alexandria. Relations between Christians and Jews gradually deteriorated in Alexandria. Finally, the Jews made a treacherous night attack on the Christians. "Irritated by this," says Socrates, "Cyril with a great multitude of people goes to the Jewish synagogues, takes them away, and drives them out of the city, and gives their property to the people for plunder." Orestes tried to defend the Jews, presenting to the Emperor Theodosius II the disadvantage of the total eviction of Jews from Alexandria, but his presentation was unsuccessful... At the same time, there was a popular indignation, during which Hypatia, a female philosopher, was killed. At the same time, many blamed the archbishop for this murder – hardly with reason. In any case, the episcopal activity of Saint Cyril took place in difficult and confused circumstances. Alexandria was generally a restless city. Saint Cyril tried to bring comfort with his pastoral words. He called sermons his usual and constant business. At one time, they were a great success – according to Gennadius of Massilia, they were memorized. Relatively few of them have survived to this day. In his early sermons, Saint Cyril persistently struggled against the rebellious spirit of the Alexandrians, denouncing robbery, denouncing the superstitions of the pagans and the dual faith of Christians. In later sermons, dogmatic questions overshadow questions of moral life. Especially interesting are the "Paschal Epistles" of St. Cyril, 29 of them have been preserved, for the years 414-442. 3. Nestorius, who entered the cathedra of Constantinople in 428, soon caused confusion and agitation by his Christological teaching. The turmoil that began in Constantinople soon spread beyond its borders. "Everywhere," wrote John of Antioch a little later, "both in places far from us and in places close to us, everything has been set in motion, everywhere one and the same thing is heard. A violent storm suddenly overtook the churches: everywhere the faithful are separated from one another from day to day as a result of this interpretation. The West, Egypt and even Macedonia decisively separated from unity" (with Nestorius). The news of Constantinople reached Alexandria very soon, probably from the apocrisiaries of the bishop of Alexandria, and already in the spring of 429 Cyril came out against Nestorius, although he did not mention him by name. In view of the fact that "thoughts alien to the truth began to spread in Egypt as well," St. Cyril issued a special and detailed "Epistle to the Monks" in explanation of Christological truths. After this, St. Cyril addressed an epistle to Nestorius himself, urging him to stop the "universal temptation" that his opinions and writings aroused. St. Cyril expressed himself softly and restrainedly, but Nestorius met this interference of the "Egyptian" in his affairs with great nervousness and irritation. 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 Blessed Chrysostom. At court, the intervention of St. Cyril was met with great discontent, and it seemed that the "Egyptian" was again violating the church peace that had been established with such difficulty. The supporters of Nestorius turned the emperor against Saint Cyril, just as the Arians had slandered the great Athanasius. With great sorrow Saint Cyril learned of this, and for all his natural passion he continued to act with restraint and peace. At the beginning of the year 430, he turned to Nestorius with a second dogmatic epistle, and in it he explained, on the basis of Tradition and the unchanging faith of the Church, the mystery of the Incarnation. This epistle was later approved at the Council of Ephesus. At the same time, Saint Cyril wrote about controversial questions to various persons, – to the emperor Theodosius ("On the Right Faith"), to his wife Eudoxia 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 to the true idea of the Divine-human hypostasis of Christ. At the same time, St. Cyril cites a large number of patristic testimonies. Finally, he published five books against Nestorius. All these works of St. Cyril were widely distributed. The question of Nestorius' opinions was thus posed sharply and clearly. Apparently, Cyril instructed his apocrisiaries in Constantinople to demand that Nestorius formally subscribe to his dogmatic expositions of faith... To the Nestorian preaching, St. Cyril contrasted his confession. Not everyone and everywhere reacted equally to the positive and polemical aspects of the activity of Saint Cyril, and not all opponents of Nestorius were ready to unite around Saint Cyril. This greatly slowed down and hampered the victory of truth. At the same time, not everyone immediately understood 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 St. Cyril, and the Pope authorized the Archbishop of Alexandria to act on his behalf, as his "locum tenens" (vices gerens)... In Rome, they judged not only on the basis of the materials presented by St. Cyril, but Nestorius himself sent the pope a collection of his sermons. All this material was submitted to the conclusion of the famous Massilian presbyter John Cassian, who soon presented his "Seven Books on the Incarnation of Christ" to Rome. His imprisonment was very harsh. And in August 430 the pope, with a local council, declared the teaching of Nestorius heretical and instructed Saint Cyril to once again appeal to Nestorius with an exhortation — and if Nestorius did not repent and renounce within ten days, the pope declared him deposed and excommunicated. Through Saint Cyril the pope forwarded his epistles to Nestorius himself, to the clergy of Constantinople and to certain bishops of the East. In October 430, another local council met in Alexandria. He repeated the definitions of the Roman Council and supplemented them with a detailed formula of renunciation for Nestorius. These were the famous "chapters" (κεφαλαια) or anathemas of St. Cyril, 12 in number. At the same time, Saint Cyril addressed a letter to John of Antioch, to Juvenal of Jerusalem, and to Accacius of Berea, one of the most venerable and respected bishops of the East. On the basis of these letters and on the basis of Roman definitions, John of Antioch also addressed a warning message to Nestorius... But the anathematisms of St. Cyril were met in the East with bewilderment and even alarm. On the instructions of John of Antioch, they were dismantled by Andrew of Samosata and even more sharply by Theodoret of Cyrus. Against these objections, St. Cyril "had to" write a defense. His opponents cast a shadow of unrighteousness and Apollinarism on Cyril. At the same time, Nestorius stirred up the people of Constantinople against the "Egyptian", reminded them of the former hostility of Alexandria to Constantinople, of the persecution of Chrysostom raised by Theophilus of Alexandria. At the same time, Nestorius delayed the action of the Roman and Alexandrian conciliar decisions, persuading the emperor to convene an Ecumenical Council. The Sacra for the convocation of the council was issued on November 19 (430), the date of the convocation was set for Pentecost of the following year. In Constantinople, apparently, they feared that Cyril would evade and not appear at the Council. Meanwhile, he greeted the convocation of the council with joy, expecting from it a resolution of the matter. He actively prepared for the council, collecting materials for a dogmatic analysis of the questions raised.

Part 2

4. The activity of the Council of Ephesus proceeded in a difficult and difficult situation. The main fighter for Orthodoxy was St. Cyril, supported by the local bishop Memnon and Roman legates. Nestorius enjoyed the support of the emperor, and the comitus Candidianus, authorized by the emperor to open and observe order during the council, openly hindered the actions of the Orthodox. Immediately after his arrival at Ephesus, Saint Cyril began to speak both in assemblies 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 access to the city churches, evading communion with him, as with a man of doubtful faith... Relations immediately became acute... The opening of the Council was delayed due to the tardiness of the "Eastern"... After a two-week wait, Saint Cyril decided to begin the council, despite the sharp opposition of Candidian and Nestorius and the protests of his supporters. St. Cyril presided over the opening council. All dogmatic materials were considered. Nestorius did not appear at the council, and the council deputation was not allowed by the imperial guards to visit him at his house. As a result, Nestorius was declared deposed and excommunicated, and the second (apparently the third) epistle of Saint Cyril against him was accepted and approved. This was on June 22, 430. The resolution of this first assembly has 197 signatures (Nestorius' protest was signed by 10 other bishops). These decrees aroused the indignation of Candidian, who considered the assembly of June 22 an illegal assembly and prevented his fathers from communicating with Constantinople and other cities. However, he did not succeed in isolating the fathers of the council. Saint Cyril was able to send letters and messengers both to Alexandria and to Constantinople. The emperor took the side of Nestorius. Nestorius was also supported by the "Easterners" who finally arrived with John of Antioch. They did not recognize the opening of the council, met with its fathers unfriendly and inattentive, and, without discussing the question on the merits, together with the supporters of Nestorius, formed their own council, at which they condemned and deposed Cyril and Memnon, for "heretical heads" (propter haereticum prаedictorum cаpitulorum sensum) and for violating the peace of the Church. The bishops gathered in Ephesus were thus divided and split. 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 council (meeting on July 11)... In one of his speeches at Ephesus, St. Cyril figuratively describes the activities of the council under the guise of fighting the ferocious and many-headed serpent, and depicts John of Antioch as a treacherous observer, who suddenly and unexpectedly takes the side of the enemy and begins to strike with arrows of hatred the wounded and exhausted fighters whom he should have helped. It is no exaggeration to say that St. Cyril endured the burden of the struggle more than others, and therefore he rightly said of himself: "I go out against him, drawing my spiritual sword. I'm fighting for Christ with the beast." In Ephesus he fought himself, and in Constantinople through his apocrisiarii and through the special ambassadors Potamon and Comarius, who remained in Constantinople after they had brought there the acts of the councils of Rome and Alexandria in 430. The emperor confirmed the deposition of Cyril and Memnon, but also confirmed the deposition of Nestorius, and counted on the reconciliation of the schismatics; to carry out these orders, the comitus John was sent. He arrived in Ephesus in early August. Cyril and Memnon were imprisoned, but 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 matters of faith. Both councils sent their representatives to Constantinople. These delegates met with the emperor in Chalcedon in mid-September. Here Kirill's supporters won. Nestorius was removed from Ephesus. A successor was set up and dedicated to him in the person of Saint Maximian. However, the "easterners" did not agree with this. Memnon and St. 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 the dogmatic struggle. The victory over Nestorius was achieved at the cost of a schism in the Church, behind which there was a theological misunderstanding between the "Egyptians" and the "Easterners". The next step was to reconcile and reunite. In addition, Nestorianism was not completely defeated, and the conciliar condemnation of Nestorius in the East was not accepted by everyone. The lie of Nestorianism for the "Easterners" has not yet been revealed. The theological struggle had to deepen still further, and 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 of Alexandrian theology was raised, of which St. Cyril was now a typical representative... Immediately after the Council, St. Cyril summed up the results of the struggle, in his "Defense Speech" to the emperor. He then proceeded to examine Theodoret's objections to his twelfth anathemas. The question of reunification with the "Easterners" was very acute. The "Easterners" made it a condition of reconciliation for Cyril to renounce all that he had written against Nestorius, "either in epistles, or in fragments, or in whole books," and, above all, of his "chapters." Of course, this was impossible, and would have meant a renunciation of the Council of Ephesus. Saint Cyril considered it impossible to deviate into dogmatic obscurity, which the "Easterners" proposed, to confine himself to the Nicene Creed, and to explain it with the Christological Epistle of Saint Athanasius to the Epictetus of Corinth. At the same time, Cyril diligently explained the meaning of his theological judgments. The work of reconciliation moved slowly. He also had to fight with court intrigues - to fight not only with words, but also with gold... Gradually, a group of moderates emerged in the east, agreeing to communion with Cyril, but stubbornly resisting the deposition of Nestorius. Few agreed to the deposition of Nestorius. There were not a few stubborn opponents of Saint Cyril and direct supporters of Nestorius. At the end of 432, Paul of Emesa was sent to Alexandria from the moderate majority of the "Easterners". He managed to come to an agreement with Cyril, and on Christmas 432 he was received into communion in Alexandria. At the beginning of 433, full unity in the Church was restored. St. Cyril celebrated it with his famous epistle to John of Antioch "Let the heavens rejoice"... However, this "reunification" with the East was not without controversy, both the stubborn Antiochians and the extreme Alexandrians objected. Kirill had to explain to the latter the meaning of "reunification". The East was also slowly calming down. Suspicions against St. Cyril were not extinguished. At the same time, disputes began about Theodore of Mopsuestia. Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, immediately after the Council of Ephesus, anathematized Theodore and urged Saint Cyril to do the same. The dispute that flared up, which spread to Constantinople, was stopped by the imperial prohibition "to undertake 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 tranquility of the East, which had not yet come to full peace. Saint Cyril refrained from harsh actions, but at the same time he worked on a book against Theodore and Diodorus, and did not conceal his negative attitude towards their "blasphemous tongue 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, took his main forces. From the surviving sermons and letters, one can get an idea of him as a persistent and firm pastor, who attentively followed the life of his flock and his diocese. After a turbulent life, he died in 444. In the memory of the Church, his image is 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 always remained the "rule of faith," for Pope Leo and for Flavian. The Chalcedonian Fathers defined their faith as "the faith of St. Cyril." The Fifth Ecumenical Council relied on the judgment of Cyril in condemning the "three chapters." Saint Cyril was relied upon by Saint Maximus the Confessor in his struggle against the Monothelites, and by the Monk Anastasius of Sinai. Saint Cyril had less influence in the West. It was as if they were silent about him here, and in any case he was little known and remembered. St. Cyril is commemorated in the East on June 9 and together with St. Athanasius on January 18, and in the West on January 28.

II. Creations

1. Among the works of St. Cyril, the first in time were his exegetical works on the Old Testament. Even before his episcopacy, he wrote a book "On Worship in the Spirit and in Truth" (in dialogical form), 13 books of "Elegant Sayings" – Γλαφυρά and, probably, commentaries on the minor prophets and on 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 the wood of the letter, as it were, and reach the very heart of the plant, i.e. carefully examine the inner fruit of what is commanded and eat it" – this is how he defines the rule of interpretation. Under the letter of Scripture he is looking for a "spiritual meaning." In the application to the Old Testament, this rule was fully justified, "for the images given in the law are images, and in the shadows is inscribed the image of the truth." That is why the law was abolished only in its letter, but not in its spiritual content and meaning. In the spiritual sense, the law remains in force to this day. In his first explanatory work, St. Cyril reveals this mysterious, allegorical and immutable meaning of the Mosaic Law and sketches a coherent sketch of the Old Testament economy. In particular, he dwells on the Old Testament prototypes of the Church. In the books of the "Elegant Sayings" he develops the same theme and sets himself the task of showing that "in all the books of Moses the mystery of Christ is prefigured." Allegorism is somewhat weaker in commentaries on prophetic books, in which historical research predominates. Only in fragments have Cyril's commentaries on the books of Kings, the Song of Songs, on the prophets Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Baruch and Daniel... In addition to the Greek text, St. Cyril often turns to the Hebrew text. 2. To the Pre-Nestorian time belongs the compilation of an extensive commentary on the Gospel of John — in 12 books — only fragments of the VII and VIII books have been preserved. The commentary has a dogmatic character and is related in origin to the tasks of anti-Arian polemics. The commentary on the Gospel of Luke, which originally consisted of 156 discourses, has been preserved with gaps, more complete in the ancient Syriac translation than in the Greek original. Insignificant fragments 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 topics. To the Pre-Nestorian period belong two enormous works devoted to the revelation of the Trinitarian dogma, the Treasury and the books On the Holy and Indivisible Trinity. In the Treasury, St. Cyril sums up all the anti-Arian polemics in a simple and concise form, relying especially 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 more dialogical form. St. Cyril also touches upon the Christological theme here. Both books were written for a friend named Nemesia. 4. During the Nestorian struggle, St. Cyril wrote a great deal. In the first place, it is necessary to recall his famous anathemas or "chapters" against Nestorius, with their "explanations" and "defenses" against the "Eastern" and against Theodoret. Prior to the anathemas, the Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only-begotten and the books On the True Faith were compiled, to the emperor (Theodosius) and to the royal virgins. After the Council of Ephesus, "A Sermon Against Those Who Do Not Wish 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, Bishop Cyril. Edessa. Only fragments of the books "Against the Sinusiastes" and "Against Theodore and Diodorus" have been preserved. It is necessary to add to this numerous letters, many of which are dogmatic treatises. Such are the letters or epistles to Nestorius, the letter to John of Antioch, containing the formula of unity, the letters to Acacius of Miletius, to Valerian of Iconium, and two letters to Suckens, bishop of Diocaesarea. In the dogmatic works of St. Cyril, references to patristic tradition occupy a prominent place. Apparently, he also compiled a special collection of patristic testimonies, the "book of texts" mentioned by Leontius of Byzantium. Cyril, it seems, also wrote against the Pelagians. 5. The first 10 books from an extensive apologetic work, "On the Holy Christian Religion Against the Godless Julian," have been preserved. Of the eleventh and twentieth books, only insignificant fragments in Greek and Syriac have survived, the whole work apparently consisted of 30 books. St. Cyril examines here the "three books of Julian against the Gospel and against the Christians," written in the years 362-363 and, apparently, retained popularity at the beginning of the fifth century. The "books" of Julian are known to us only in fragments preserved by St. Cyril. He quotes 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 much about the agreement of the Evangelists among themselves, the Synoptics, and John. The polemics of St. Cyril have a rather sharp character. There is not much new in it. St. Cyril repeats the previous apologists, especially Eusebius of Caesarea. St. Cyril wrote after the Council of Ephesus.

III. Theology

Part 1

1. In his theological confession, St. 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 witness of the Word of God. "And, indeed, reasoning about the Highest Essence of all and Her mysteries turns out to be a dangerous matter and not harmless for many," remarks St. Cyril. At the same time, he does not attach much importance to the logical coining of the concepts used to define the truths of faith. This was his weakness, which greatly hindered him in the struggle 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 foundations. In its intrinsic existence, the Divine nature is inaccessible, hidden, and inconceivable, not only for human eyes, but for all creation. Only through the consideration of the works of God is it possible to ascend to some extent to the knowledge of God. But at the same time, we must firmly remember the boundless distance between God and creation, the incommensurability of the Creator's boundless nature with the limitation of creation. The impression is never equal to the seal itself, and the reflection of truth in our mental conception is not identical with the truth itself. We always "think sparingly about God"... Only in shadows and riddles is the knowledge of God accessible to us... "For whom it is not obvious," remarks St. Cyril, "that our nature possesses neither concepts nor words, by means of which it would be possible to express the properties of the Divine and ineffable nature quite correctly and correctly. Therefore we are compelled to use words that are in accordance with our nature, if only for some clarification of objects that transcend our minds. Indeed, is it possible to express something that exceeds our very thought? As a result, we, taking the coarseness of human concepts as if for a symbol or image, must try to pass in a way accessible to us to the very properties of the Godhead"... And in the mysterious contemplations of the prophets, it was not the nature of God that was revealed, "as it is in its very essence," but only "the vision of the likeness of the glory of God"... In the Scriptures themselves, the truth is revealed in a way that is applied and hidden, and therefore without grace-filled help and illumination, the true understanding of the Scriptures is not possible. Only in the experience of faith is the meaning of the Word of God revealed. Only faith, not research, takes us beyond our created limitations. Faith must precede investigation, and solid knowledge can be established only on the basis of faith. Without enlightenment by the Spirit, it is impossible to come to the knowledge of the truth, and it is 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 unseemly to pour precious myrrh into a pit... Knowledge of God is contemplation and contemplation, in contrast to external knowledge. Our present knowledge is imperfect knowledge, "knowledge in part"; but, at the same time, knowledge is true and reliable, for even in a little knowledge the beauty of truth shines whole and undamaged... In the future life this incompleteness and concealment will be removed, and then we will "unconcealed and clearly see the glory of God, Who communicates to us the clearest knowledge of Himself"... "Then, having no need of any image at all, nor of riddles and parables, let us understand the beauty of the Divine nature of God and the Father with an open face and unhindered mind, as it were, beholding the glory of Him Who came from Him." The radiant beauty of the stars fades in the power of sunlight. In the same way, in the perfect light of Divine glory, the present dark knowledge will be abolished. St. Cyril does not limit himself to apophatic theology alone. But he prefers knowledge ("gnosis") in the experience of spiritual life with Christ and in Christ to knowledge through investigation and reasoning. Being a subtle and sharp theologian, he was not at all a philosopher in his spiritual makeup. In many ways, he is close to the Cappadocians, and especially to St. Gregory the Theologian. 2. Full knowledge of God consists in knowing not only that God exists, but also "that He is the Father and Whom He is the Father, including here obviously the Holy Spirit," says St. Cyril. In this lies the supreme knowledge of God, revealed by Christ, that He revealed to people the name of the Father, that He led them to the understanding of the Trinitarian 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 is the 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 a certain extent explained by imperfect analogies of created nature... In the exposition of the Trinitarian dogma, St. Cyril proceeds from the Scriptures and relies on the patristic tradition and, above all, on the works of St. Athanasius. Under the terms of the anti-Arian polemics, he dwells with special attention on the revelation and proof of the ontological character of the Trinitarian hypostasis. Following the Cappadocians in Trinitarian theology, St. Cyril clearly distinguishes between the concepts of "essence" (or "nature"), on the one hand, and "hypostasis", on the other. The one Divine nature is cognized "in three independent hypostases"; Of course, it is not only known, but also exists. The Trinitarian names indicate real differences, the peculiarities of hypostatic existence. The Trinitarian hypostases are different in being, each exists in its own way (ίδίως), is that which is; and at the same time they are of the same essence... This consubstantiality signifies not only the abstract unity or identity of nature, but also the perfect interpenetration and mutual "communion" of the Divine Persons, τήν είσάπαν άναπλоκήν. Therefore, in Each Person Each Person is fully known, since for all the peculiarity of their existence they "essentially abide in each other", εν άλλήλоις ένυπάρχоντες оύσιωδώς... Trinitarian names are relative, indicating the mutual relationship of hypostases. And apart from the hypostatic differences, there are no other differences in the Holy Trinity... In this revelation of the Divine Trinity, St. Cyril remains within the boundaries of Cappadocian theology. Divine unity means for him the perfect identity of nature and the indissoluble intercommunion of hypostases. This unity of the Divine nature and the Divine life is manifested in the perfect unity of God's will and Divine actions. And above all is one Kingdom and Power of the Holy Trinity, for all things are inseparable from the Father through the Son in the Spirit... The unknown Trinitarian unity of Divine being and life is to be found and must find for itself a perfect reflection and likeness in the Church. Christ leads those who believe in Him to spiritual unity, "so that the unity that is in agreement in all things and inseparably 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 attain the inseparability which the Father and the Son have in the identity of essence. However, in the unanimity and unanimity of the faithful, both the essential identity and the perfect interpenetration of the persons of the Holy Trinity are reflected. For there is also a certain "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 own limit and hypostasis," "separating each one from the other by souls and bodies into a particular person," we are essentially united in the unity of the body of Christ, through the Eucharist... We become "co-corporeal" with 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 with each other in the unity of the Spirit, "having received the supermundane reflection of the Holy Spirit united with us"... Thus, "we are all one in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, — one in identity of attributes, and in uniformity in religion, and in communion with the holy flesh of Christ, and in communion with the one and holy Spirit." For all the incompleteness of the likeness, the Church, as a union of unanimity and peace, is a better 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 may they also be one in Us"... (John 17:21).

Part 2