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

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.

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

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 a revelation of the Trinity, for the Fatherland 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 the Source, for he is the root and source of the Godhead, and the name of the source here means only "being from what." The concepts of time and change are not at all applicable to the Divine life, and therefore all hypostatic properties and relations must be thought of as eternal and immutable. There is no gap between the Divinity and the Patronymic of the First Hypostasis, and the eternity of the Fatherland means the eternity of the ineffable Divine birth, i.e. the eternity of Sonship. From the eternal Father is born the eternal Son. He does not "come into being," nor "arises," but eternally "was" and abides in the Father as in the source, always exists in Him as His Word, Wisdom, Power, Mark, Reflection and Image... With these last definitions, the apostolic and beloved definitions of St. Athanasius, St. Cyril attaches special importance, — they especially clearly express the perfect consubstantiality and equality of 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 Him whose reflection He is, but Himself is in Him and has the Father in Himself, according to the perfect identity of nature and attributes – "He Himself is in the Father naturally"... Without a perfect identity of properties, there would be no accuracy in representation and drawing. The Son is in the Father and from the Father, not from outside or in the course of time receiving His being, but being in essence and shining from it, as from the sun proceeds its brilliance. Birth is an act of nature (τής φύσεως), and not an act of the will, and this is the difference between birth and creation. The Son dwells "in the bosom 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 to which it is the Mark. "Consubstantial" thus signifies, for St. Cyril, not only generic similarity and community of properties, but also the perfect and indivisible unity of life. The concepts of "birth" and "inscription" complement and explain each other. The mark indicates a perfect similarity of properties, and birth indicates the origin "from essence" and "natural co-existence" with the Father. In the "consubstantial" or "natural unity" the self-hypostasis of the Persons is not erased: in the unity of essence, the Father and the Son each exist "in his own person" (έν ίδίω πρоσώπω) and in a special existence (ίδιαστάτως), but without separation and dissection, — at once and separately and united. In St. Cyril there is no complete uniformity in Trinitarian terminology, and through the later Cappadocian usage, the former, Nicene and Athanasian ones often break through. He uses the totality of concepts and definitions in order to substantiate and reveal the perfect consubstantiality of the Son and the Word. 4. The Son is the Creator and Provider of the world, inseparable from the Father and the Spirit, the Beginning and Organizer of all 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 things. "Being Life Himself by nature, He bestows being, life, and motion upon beings in many ways. It is not that by means of any division or change He enters into each of the beings of different natures, but the creation itself is diversified by the ineffable wisdom and power of the Creator... And there is one Life of all, which enters into every being, as much as it befits and as much as it can receive." That is why the Evangelist says: "What was made. In Him was life" (John 1:3-4) — such, apparently, was the most ancient 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 has its own life and being. The Son not only calls the creature into being, but also contains what has happened through Himself, "as if mixing Himself with that which has no eternal existence in its nature, and becoming Life for that which exists, so that what has happened may remain and remain within the limits of its nature." Being present in creation by communion (διά μετоχής) and giving it life, the Word, as it were, overcomes the weakness of created beings, which have arisen and are therefore subject to destruction, and "artificially, as it were, arranges eternity for them." The Word is Life by nature or Self-Life, and therefore It is life for creation. Through the light of the Word, out of the darkness of non-existence, creation arises and arises, "and Light shines in darkness"... The presence of the Word in creation does not blur the line between it and creation. On the contrary, this boundary becomes all the more clear to us when it is revealed that the creature exists and lives only through communion with something other than itself, only through the communion of self-existent Life. Creation is an incomprehensible act of God's will, and the 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 sermon "On the Incarnation." And together with Athanasius, St. Cyril rejects Phidon's idea of the Word as a "mediator" between God and the world in creation and in the providence of creation. There is nothing in between God and the creature, no "middle nature" or being. Only God is above creation, and everything else is "subject to the yoke of slavery"... 5. The teaching about 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 from God is God, consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and in no way inferior or less than them in Divine dignity. He has "an essence that transcends all things," "the purest and most perfect nature," He is God from God, "self-wisdom and self-power," άυτόχρημα σоφία καί δύναμις. And therefore he unites us with the Divine nature and, dwelling in us, by communion makes us temples of God and gods by grace. Through him, God dwells in people. He is the fullness of all good things 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 to you. Proceeding from the Father, the Holy Spirit dwells essentially in the Father, for He proceeds "inseparably and indissolubly" and is the "own" Spirit of the Father. By virtue of the perfect and indivisible consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit is "own" to the Son, "essentially united to Him," by nature "born" and belongs to Him, naturally abides in Him — there is "the Father and the Son's own Spirit." And at the same time, he exists hypostatically and about himself... By virtue of the identity of nature, the Spirit is not separable from the Son, and through Him proceeds by nature... St. Cyril seeks to emphasize the perfect consubstantiality and indivisibility of the Son and the Spirit: "The Son, being in essence a partaker of the natural goods of the Father, has the Spirit in the same way as it should be understood of 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, St. Cyril does not intend to investigate or define the image of the "ineffable procession," but strives, on the one hand, to affirm the truth of consubstantiality, and on the other, to determine the relationship between the actions in the world of the Spirit and the incarnate Son. In other words, he seeks to explain the meaning of the sending down and descent of the Holy Spirit into the world in connection with the redemptive work of the Son of God. The Saviour speaks of the Spirit as "another Comforter" in order to distinguish Him from Himself and to show His special and Own hypostasis. And yet He calls Him the "Spirit of Truth," and apparently "blows in" Him to testify that the Spirit belongs to the divine essence or nature. "In order that the disciples may see that He promises to grant them not the inspiration of an alien and foreign power, but Himself, (only) in another way, for this purpose He calls the Paraclete the Spirit of Truth, i.e. the Spirit of Himself, for the Holy Spirit is not thought to be alien to the essence of the Only-begotten, but proceeds naturally from it, and in relation to the identity of nature is nothing else in comparison with it, although it is thought to be self-existent. Thus, the expression "Spirit of Truth" should lead us to a full knowledge of the truth. As he who knows the Truth, of which He is the Spirit, will not reveal it in part to those who worship Him, but will fully communicate the mystery of it... And He will not say anything that contradicts Me, and He will not preach to you a doctrine that is alien, for He will not introduce any laws of His own. Since He is Spirit and as it were My mind, He will also speak that which is in Me. And this is what the Saviour says not in order that we should consider the Holy Spirit to be ministering, according to the ignorance of some, but on the contrary, out of a desire to assure the disciples that, being no other than different from Him, in relation to consubstantiality, His Spirit will certainly speak in this way, and act and will. For He would not have foretold the future in the same way as I have, if He had not existed in Me and had not come into being through Me, and were not of the same essence with Me"... St. Cyril has in mind 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 by the Father, the Son guides His disciples, teaches them, and through the Spirit dwells in them. To see in St. Cyril an approximation to the Augustinian concept of the procession of the Spirit and to bring it closer to the filioque would be a violation of the connection of thought. And this is directly supported by his own testimony. In the ninth anathema against Nestorius, St. Cyril condemned those "who say that the one Lord Jesus Christ is glorified by the Spirit, using His own power, as alien (άλλτρία) to Himself, and having received from Him the power to conquer unclean spirits and to perform Divine signs in people, and does not say, on the contrary, that the Spirit, through Whom he performed the signs of God, is His own (ϊδιоς) Spirit." Blessed Theodoret remarked against this: "If Cyril calls the Spirit his own Son in the sense that he is co-natural with the Son and proceeds from the Father, then we agree with him and recognize his expressions as Orthodox. But if (he calls) in the sense that the Spirit is from the Son or through the Son has existence, then we reject this expression as blasphemous and impious." St. Cyril in his reply confirmed that he did not at all mean the "impious" opinion assumed by Theodoret, but wanted to emphasize that the Spirit "is not alien to the Son, because the Son has everything together with the Father." The IX anathema has, of course, a Christological content, and in it St. Cyril rejects the false idea of Christ's relation to the Spirit according to his human nature, as "alien" to this nature, and in opposition puts forward the assertion of the "property" or affinity of the Spirit and the incarnate Word. He means that there is no relation between Christ and the Holy Spirit than there is between the saints and the Spirit... Christ not only receives the Holy Spirit according to His humanity, but also gives Him to Himself, as God, for our sake, for the sanctification of His flesh, as the firstfruits of our nature. He receives the Holy Ghost from Himself, "receives His own Spirit, and gives It to Himself as God." The views of St. Cyril on this question did not change, and he never set himself the task of investigating the image of the procession "through the Son"... 6. In his Trinitarian confession, St. Cyril sums up the theological struggle and work that has already ended. He has little new and original. The whole interest and all the significance of his Trinitarian theology lies precisely in this lack of independence. It bears witness to the average theological worldview of the early fifth 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

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 a revelation of the Trinity, for the Fatherland 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 the Source, for he is the root and source of the Godhead, and the name of the source here means only "being from what." The concepts of time and change are not at all applicable to the Divine life, and therefore all hypostatic properties and relations must be thought of as eternal and immutable. There is no gap between the Divinity and the Patronymic of the First Hypostasis, and the eternity of the Fatherland means the eternity of the ineffable Divine birth, i.e. the eternity of Sonship. From the eternal Father is born the eternal Son. He does not "come into being," nor "arises," but eternally "was" and abides in the Father as in the source, always exists in Him as His Word, Wisdom, Power, Mark, Reflection and Image... With these last definitions, the apostolic and beloved definitions of St. Athanasius, St. Cyril attaches special importance, — they especially clearly express the perfect consubstantiality and equality of 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 Him whose reflection He is, but Himself is in Him and has the Father in Himself, according to the perfect identity of nature and attributes – "He Himself is in the Father naturally"... Without a perfect identity of properties, there would be no accuracy in representation and drawing. The Son is in the Father and from the Father, not from outside or in the course of time receiving His being, but being in essence and shining from it, as from the sun proceeds its brilliance. Birth is an act of nature (τής φύσεως), and not an act of the will, and this is the difference between birth and creation. The Son dwells "in the bosom 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 to which it is the Mark. "Consubstantial" thus signifies, for St. Cyril, not only generic similarity and community of properties, but also the perfect and indivisible unity of life. The concepts of "birth" and "inscription" complement and explain each other. The mark indicates a perfect similarity of properties, and birth indicates the origin "from essence" and "natural co-existence" with the Father. In the "consubstantial" or "natural unity" the self-hypostasis of the Persons is not erased: in the unity of essence, the Father and the Son each exist "in his own person" (έν ίδίω πρоσώπω) and in a special existence (ίδιαστάτως), but without separation and dissection, — at once and separately and united. In St. Cyril there is no complete uniformity in Trinitarian terminology, and through the later Cappadocian usage, the former, Nicene and Athanasian ones often break through. He uses the totality of concepts and definitions in order to substantiate and reveal the perfect consubstantiality of the Son and the Word. 4. The Son is the Creator and Provider of the world, inseparable from the Father and the Spirit, the Beginning and Organizer of all 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 things. "Being Life Himself by nature, He bestows being, life, and motion upon beings in many ways. It is not that by means of any division or change He enters into each of the beings of different natures, but the creation itself is diversified by the ineffable wisdom and power of the Creator... And there is one Life of all, which enters into every being, as much as it befits and as much as it can receive." That is why the Evangelist says: "What was made. In Him was life" (John 1:3-4) — such, apparently, was the most ancient 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 has its own life and being. The Son not only calls the creature into being, but also contains what has happened through Himself, "as if mixing Himself with that which has no eternal existence in its nature, and becoming Life for that which exists, so that what has happened may remain and remain within the limits of its nature." Being present in creation by communion (διά μετоχής) and giving it life, the Word, as it were, overcomes the weakness of created beings, which have arisen and are therefore subject to destruction, and "artificially, as it were, arranges eternity for them." The Word is Life by nature or Self-Life, and therefore It is life for creation. Through the light of the Word, out of the darkness of non-existence, creation arises and arises, "and Light shines in darkness"... The presence of the Word in creation does not blur the line between it and creation. On the contrary, this boundary becomes all the more clear to us when it is revealed that the creature exists and lives only through communion with something other than itself, only through the communion of self-existent Life. Creation is an incomprehensible act of God's will, and the 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 sermon "On the Incarnation." And together with Athanasius, St. Cyril rejects Phidon's idea of the Word as a "mediator" between God and the world in creation and in the providence of creation. There is nothing in between God and the creature, no "middle nature" or being. Only God is above creation, and everything else is "subject to the yoke of slavery"... 5. The teaching about 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 from God is God, consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and in no way inferior or less than them in Divine dignity. He has "an essence that transcends all things," "the purest and most perfect nature," He is God from God, "self-wisdom and self-power," άυτόχρημα σоφία καί δύναμις. And therefore he unites us with the Divine nature and, dwelling in us, by communion makes us temples of God and gods by grace. Through him, God dwells in people. He is the fullness of all good things 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 to you. Proceeding from the Father, the Holy Spirit dwells essentially in the Father, for He proceeds "inseparably and indissolubly" and is the "own" Spirit of the Father. By virtue of the perfect and indivisible consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit is "own" to the Son, "essentially united to Him," by nature "born" and belongs to Him, naturally abides in Him — there is "the Father and the Son's own Spirit." And at the same time, he exists hypostatically and about himself... By virtue of the identity of nature, the Spirit is not separable from the Son, and through Him proceeds by nature... St. Cyril seeks to emphasize the perfect consubstantiality and indivisibility of the Son and the Spirit: "The Son, being in essence a partaker of the natural goods of the Father, has the Spirit in the same way as it should be understood of 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, St. Cyril does not intend to investigate or define the image of the "ineffable procession," but strives, on the one hand, to affirm the truth of consubstantiality, and on the other, to determine the relationship between the actions in the world of the Spirit and the incarnate Son. In other words, he seeks to explain the meaning of the sending down and descent of the Holy Spirit into the world in connection with the redemptive work of the Son of God. The Saviour speaks of the Spirit as "another Comforter" in order to distinguish Him from Himself and to show His special and Own hypostasis. And yet He calls Him the "Spirit of Truth," and apparently "blows in" Him to testify that the Spirit belongs to the divine essence or nature. "In order that the disciples may see that He promises to grant them not the inspiration of an alien and foreign power, but Himself, (only) in another way, for this purpose He calls the Paraclete the Spirit of Truth, i.e. the Spirit of Himself, for the Holy Spirit is not thought to be alien to the essence of the Only-begotten, but proceeds naturally from it, and in relation to the identity of nature is nothing else in comparison with it, although it is thought to be self-existent. Thus, the expression "Spirit of Truth" should lead us to a full knowledge of the truth. As he who knows the Truth, of which He is the Spirit, will not reveal it in part to those who worship Him, but will fully communicate the mystery of it... And He will not say anything that contradicts Me, and He will not preach to you a doctrine that is alien, for He will not introduce any laws of His own. Since He is Spirit and as it were My mind, He will also speak that which is in Me. And this is what the Saviour says not in order that we should consider the Holy Spirit to be ministering, according to the ignorance of some, but on the contrary, out of a desire to assure the disciples that, being no other than different from Him, in relation to consubstantiality, His Spirit will certainly speak in this way, and act and will. For He would not have foretold the future in the same way as I have, if He had not existed in Me and had not come into being through Me, and were not of the same essence with Me"... St. Cyril has in mind 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 by the Father, the Son guides His disciples, teaches them, and through the Spirit dwells in them. To see in St. Cyril an approximation to the Augustinian concept of the procession of the Spirit and to bring it closer to the filioque would be a violation of the connection of thought. And this is directly supported by his own testimony. In the ninth anathema against Nestorius, St. Cyril condemned those "who say that the one Lord Jesus Christ is glorified by the Spirit, using His own power, as alien (άλλτρία) to Himself, and having received from Him the power to conquer unclean spirits and to perform Divine signs in people, and does not say, on the contrary, that the Spirit, through Whom he performed the signs of God, is His own (ϊδιоς) Spirit." Blessed Theodoret remarked against this: "If Cyril calls the Spirit his own Son in the sense that he is co-natural with the Son and proceeds from the Father, then we agree with him and recognize his expressions as Orthodox. But if (he calls) in the sense that the Spirit is from the Son or through the Son has existence, then we reject this expression as blasphemous and impious." St. Cyril in his reply confirmed that he did not at all mean the "impious" opinion assumed by Theodoret, but wanted to emphasize that the Spirit "is not alien to the Son, because the Son has everything together with the Father." The IX anathema has, of course, a Christological content, and in it St. Cyril rejects the false idea of Christ's relation to the Spirit according to his human nature, as "alien" to this nature, and in opposition puts forward the assertion of the "property" or affinity of the Spirit and the incarnate Word. He means that there is no relation between Christ and the Holy Spirit than there is between the saints and the Spirit... Christ not only receives the Holy Spirit according to His humanity, but also gives Him to Himself, as God, for our sake, for the sanctification of His flesh, as the firstfruits of our nature. He receives the Holy Ghost from Himself, "receives His own Spirit, and gives It to Himself as God." The views of St. Cyril on this question did not change, and he never set himself the task of investigating the image of the procession "through the Son"... 6. In his Trinitarian confession, St. Cyril sums up the theological struggle and work that has already ended. He has little new and original. The whole interest and all the significance of his Trinitarian theology lies precisely in this lack of independence. It bears witness to the average theological worldview of the early fifth 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.

Part 1

1. In his Christological confession, St. Cyril proceeds from the living and concrete image of Christ, as he is sealed in the Gospel and preserved in the Church. This is the image of the God-man, the Incarnate Word, who came down from heaven and became man. St. Cyril clearly 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 was flesh"... This means that the Only-begotten became a man and was called... Flesh, explains St. Cyril, "lest anyone think that He appeared in the same way as in the prophets or other saints, but that He was truly made flesh, i.e. man." At the same time, the Word did not come out of its own and unchanging divine nature and was not turned 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, did not separate from the Father—to allow the diminution of the Divinity of the Word in the Incarnation would mean to destroy the entire meaning of the Incarnation, for this would mean that in the Incarnation the real and complete union of the Divinity and human nature was not accomplished. The Word is God by nature, both in the flesh and with the flesh, has it as His own and at the same time distinct from Himself. And when the Son of God in the form of a man, "the form of a servant," dwelt and circulated among people on earth, the glory of His Divinity unfailingly filled the heavens, and He dwelt with the Father, "and we saw His glory, the glory of the Only-begotten of 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 assert that He was overcome by the weakness of the flesh, or that He was deprived of His original power and glory, as soon as He was clothed with our weak and inglorious body," when He descended to brotherhood with slaves and creatures. On the contrary, in Christ the slave nature is liberated, ascending into a mysterious unity with the One who received and bore the "form of a servant"; and by kinship with Him, His Divine dignity extends to all of us, 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 communion of His nature with men." This was not some "other son," but one and the same Son of the Father, who took upon Himself human flesh for our sake, "perfect according to the nature of the Godhead, and then, as it were, diminished in the measures of mankind"... "The whole mystery of the economy consists in the exhaustion and humiliation of the Son of God," said St. Cyril... And through this "kenosis," through this ineffable and voluntary condescension and humiliation, the Incarnate Word occupies "a kind of 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 took on our nature, "transfiguring it into His own life," through a certain ineffable union and union... With this earthly body, which became the body of the Word, He was and appeared at once God and man, united in Himself that which was divided and separated by nature. By nature, the flesh, i.e. humanity, is something "different" in Christ, different from God the Word, who is from the Father and in the Father. But at the same time, "we understand the Word as something one with His own flesh." In this ineffable "coition" (συνδρоμή) and "unity" (ένωσις) is contained "the whole mystery of Christ," "one of the two" (έν τι τό έξ αμφоιν)... The Son of God, Christ, has one person and one hypostasis, and everything that is said in the Gospel belongs to this one hypostasis of the Incarnate Word. St. Cyril explains this unity by the example of the inseparable union in a living person of soul and body, different from each other, but not allowing of isolation. Soul and body are formed into a single person. Inspired Scripture preaches one Son and one Christ. "Inasmuch as He is God the Word, He is thought to be different from the flesh; but since He is flesh, He is thought of as something different from the Word. Since the Word that is from God the Father became man, this "other and other" must be completely abolished, in view of the ineffable unity and coition. The Son is one and one, both before the union with the flesh, and when He was united with the flesh." Christ is not divided into "two Sons," and the "own humanity" of the Word cannot be cut off from "true Sonship." Christ was a true and complete man (τέλειоς άνθρωπоς), – "the whole man", from a rational soul and body... He was not a man in appearance and not in his mental imagination, although he was not only a "simple man" (ψιλός άνθρωπоς)... He was truly and naturally man, And possessed all that is human except sin. He took on "the whole nature of man," and this is the whole meaning of His salvific work, for, as St. Cyril repeats after St. Gregory the Theologian, "What is not received is not saved." In Christ, the flesh he received was transformed into "its own quality" of the life-giving Word, i.e. into life, and itself became life-giving. And therefore He gives life to us also. "Inexpressibly and beyond the understanding of man, the Word, having united with His flesh and as it were transferred into Himself according to the power that is able to give life to those in need of life, has expelled corruption from our nature and removed death, which originally received power (over us) by reason of sin. Just as one who takes a spark and pours much chaff on it in order to preserve the seed of fire, so our Lord Jesus Christ, through His flesh, hides life in us and imposes immortality, as if it were a kind of seed that completely destroys corruption in us." The inseparable unification and, as it were, "intertwining" in one person and hypostasis of Christ the Divinity and the whole of humanity, having transformed human nature into holiness and incorruption, brings about a similar transfiguration in all people, to the extent of their union with Christ. For in Christ human nature is essentially sanctified and transformed. St. Cyril in his description of the Divine-human Face of Christ, double and at the same time inseparably one, like St. Athanasius, is guided by soteriological motifs, 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 creation, and therefore the self-existent Life had to be inseparably revealed in the perishable by nature. St. Cyril calls Christ the new Adam, emphasizes the communion and brotherhood of all people with Him in humanity. But the main emphasis he places not on this innate unity, but on the unity that is realized in believers through the mysterious union with Christ in communion with His life-giving Body. In the sacrament of the Holy Blessing (Eulogia or Eucharist) we are united with Christ, as molten pieces of wax merge with each other. It is not only by mood and not by love that we are united with Him, but essentially, "physically," and even bodily, like the branches of a life-giving vine. And as a little leaven leavens all the dough, so the mysterious Eulogia leavens our whole body, as if kneading it into herself and filling it with her power, "so that Christ also abides in us and we in Him, for with all justice it can be said that the leaven is in all the dough, and the dough is in the same way in all the leaven." Through the holy Flesh of Christ, "the attribute of the Only-begotten, i.e. Life, penetrates into us," and the entire living human being is transformed into eternal life, and humanity, created for eternal existence, is above 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 arrives through reasoning, but a direct and immediate confession of faith, a description of experience and contemplation. St. Cyril contemplates the One Christ first of all in the Gospel. "Inasmuch as the Only-begotten, the Word of God, was flesh, He was, as it were, subjected to division, and the speech about Him proceeds from a twofold contemplation... But although the speech about Him has become, as it were, twofold, nevertheless, He Himself is one and the same in everything, 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 conceals the Divinity of the Word until the time of time. But for believers, through the humiliated vision of the slave, the Divine Glory shines through the beginning of the slave. In direct contemplation, the "intercommunion of properties" is revealed to St. Cyril, and he does not go beyond the limits of experience when he transfers names from one nature to another. For to His own Word is the human nature received by Him.

Part 2

2. In the heresy of Nestorius, St. Cyril saw the denial of the most sincere and ontological union in Christ of the Divinity and humanity, the denial of the one Christ, the dissection of Him into "two Sons." And it is against this that he first of all turns, showing the destructive conclusions which are predetermined and imposed in soteriology by such a dissection. First of all, he emphasizes the "ineffable interweaving" and unity. And at the same time he explains that God the Word Himself is the beginning and center of this unity – "we say that the Word Himself, the Only-begotten Son, ineffably begotten from the essence of God and the Father, the Creator of the ages, through Whom all things and in Whom all things, at the end of these days, by the grace of the Father, received the seed of Abraham according to the scriptures, partook of flesh and blood, i.e. became man, took flesh and made it his own, was born flesh of the Most Holy Theotokos Mary." In other words, the Incarnation is the manifestation and action of God Himself, it is His assimilation and perception of mankind — God the Word is the only active subject in the act of incarnation, the Logos Himself was born of a woman... In the Nestorian interpretation, St. Cyril saw a kind of Docetism, Docetism in relation to the Divinity, as if the Incarnation is only imagined, as if only in our synthesizing perception is the duality in Christ united... "If," argues St. Cyril, "the Only-begotten Son of God, having received man from the wondrous 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 up to heaven and seated him at the right hand of God, then in vain, as it seems, the Holy Fathers taught, and we teach all the God-inspired Scriptures, that He became man. Then, of course, the whole mystery of the economy is completely overthrown." For then it follows that it is not God who descended and exhausted himself to the servitude of a servant, but man who is exalted to divine glory and superiority. Then the movement from below, not from above... On the contrary, St. Cyril constantly insists that Christ is not a "God-bearing man" (άνθρωπоς θεоφόρоς), God borne or bearing God, but God incarnate... "It is not man who reigns in us, but God who has appeared in mankind"... The Only-begotten became man, and not only took on man... The Word became man, and therefore Christ is one... This is the unity of His life and His work. And only for this reason is it salvific. Christ lived, suffered, and died as "God in the flesh" (ώς Θεός έν σαρκί), and not as a man... "We confess," wrote Cyril with a council to Nestorius, "that the Son Himself, begotten of God the Father and the Only-begotten God, though impassible by His own nature, suffered in the flesh for us, according to the Scriptures, and in the crucified body impassibly appropriated to Himself the sufferings of His own flesh. By the grace of God, He accepted death for all, giving up His own body to it, although by nature He is life and resurrection, — so that in His own flesh, as in the beginning, trampling down death by ineffable power, He might be the firstborn from the dead and the firstfruits from the dead, and open to human nature the way to the attainment of 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 as it is, was, and will be, and did not cease to be God. But the "house-building" of the Word was flesh, and suffering belongs to the "own humanity" of the Word, which does not exist separately or by itself... It does not belong to itself, but to the Word. For St. Cyril, the concept of assimilation (ίδιоπόιησις), already outlined by St. Athanasius, is decisive. The body of Christ, which is of the same essence with us, received from the Virgin, is in the same sense as each of us speaks of his own body (ίδιоν σώμα)... The concept of "assimilation" precedes St. Cyril's later teaching about the "hypostasis" of humanity in Christ, which was later developed by Leontius of Byzantium. God the Word was born of a Virgin, He gave His Blood for us and "appropriated to Himself the death of His flesh"... With this understanding, the designation of the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God and the Mother of God, denied by Nestorius and his supporters, becomes not only permissible, but also necessary... For He who was born of the Virgin was God incarnate, and not a man joined to God from without. St. Cyril always sharply and decisively rejected Apollinarianism. He spoke out against Apollinaris even before he was suspected and accused of Apollinarianism. Already in his commentary on the Gospel of John, he emphasizes the "wholeness" of humanity in Christ and the presence in Him of a "rational soul" as the subject of human sorrow and infirmities. And here he rejects all confusion of the flesh and the Divinity, and all transformation of the flesh into the divine nature. The union of the Divinity and humanity is always represented by St. Cyril as "unmerged" and "unchanging" (άσυγχύτως καί άτρέπτως) — not through transmutation or application, not through the confusion or fusion of essences, oύ κατά μετάστασιν ή τρоπήν... In his famous "second letter" to Nestorius, St. Cyril confesses thus: "We do not say that the nature of the Word, having changed, became flesh, nor that He was changed into a whole man, consisting of soul and body. But we say that the Word, having united with Himself the body, animated by the rational soul, ineffable and incomprehensible to our mind, became man, became the son of man, not by will and grace, not by perception of the person (or "role") alone... We do not imagine this to mean that in this union the difference of natures was abolished, but that the Divinity and humanity in an ineffable and inexplicable union remained perfect (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 according to the flesh was also born of a woman, not so that His divine nature took the beginning of existence in the Holy Virgin, nor that after being born of the Father He had the need to be born of Her. For it would be foolish and frivolous to say that He Who before all ages is always with the Father, still had the need to be born in order to begin His existence. Since for our sake and for our salvation He was born of a woman, uniting human nature in hypostasis (with Himself), it is therefore said that He was born in the flesh. It is not so that a simple man was born of a holy Virgin first, and then the Word descended upon Him. But He, having been united to the flesh in the womb itself, was born according to the flesh, having appropriated to Himself the flesh with which He was born. We confess Him to be the same both in suffering and in the resurrection: we do not say that the Word of God by His very nature was subjected to blows, nail wounds, and other wounds, because the Divine nature, as incorporeal, does not participate in suffering. But since all these sufferings were subjected to His body, which is His own, we say that the Word suffered for us. Because the Passionless One was in a suffering body"... This confession is justly considered almost the most remarkable of the works of St. Cyril, in terms of brightness and clarity of thought. Characteristic here is this sharp emphasis on "assimilation," on the fact that the flesh was its own Word, and everything that Christ endured and experienced in humanity refers to the Word's own human nature. The fullness of humanity in Christ is in no way limited or damaged. But this is the humanity of the Word, and not a special 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 perfects," ώς έξ άμφоτέρων τών oύσιών ένα όντα... With this affirmation of unity, St. Cyril clarifies and defends the ontological reality or "truth" of the Incarnation. And he is guided primarily by soteriological motives. St. Cyril explains and defends the truth of experience and faith, not a logical scheme, not a theological theory. And he argues not so much against individual theological formulas. In vain was he accused of finding fault with words and not wanting to understand that both Nestorius and other "Easterners" thought rightly, but expressed their faith in a different theological language. He asserted precisely that they were thinking wrongly and in any case inaccurately, that the "Eastern" way of representation hinders the accurate perception of the unity of the Divine-human person and life. The "Eastern" tendency to "discernment" seemed to him dangerous above all, and the obstinacy of the "Easterners" only justified his suspicions. He himself did not always find and choose clear and precise words, did not always express himself carefully and accurately. This shows that he is conducting not so much a theological dispute as a debate about faith. It proceeds from contemplation, not from concepts. This is its strength. It is soteriological motifs that determine the content of his famous "chapters" or anathemas. On soteriological grounds, he defends them against the "Easterners." In this he is a faithful successor of Saint Athanasius.