Trinitarian doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria

Abstract: Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria is generally considered within the framework of the Christological polemic with Nestorius, while the saint's triadological teaching is less known in Russian-language patristics. The article is a presentation of the teachings of St. Cyril on the Trinity, contained in the anti-Arian works he created before the Nestorian crisis (428) (“Book of Treasures about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity”, “Dialogues on the Holy Trinity”, “Commentary on the Gospel of John”). The following components of the Trinitarian doctrine of the saint are considered: the names and images of the existence of the Hypostases, the mutual relations of the Persons of the Trinity, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the continuity of theology and oikonomia, the deployment and unity of the Hypostases, the co-immanence of the Persons, the concept of the Trinity as a sequence of images. Particular attention is paid to the terminological apparatus of the Trinitarian discourse of the saint. Abstract: St. Cyril of Alexandria’s theology is considered generally within the framework of his christological polemic with Nestorius, whereas the saint’s triadological teaching is much less common in Russian-language patristics. This article presents a summary of St. Cyril’s doctrine of the Trinity on the basis of his anti-Arian writings written before the beginning of the Nestorian crisis (428) (“The Book of Treasures about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity”, “Dialogues about the Holy Trinity”, “Commentary on the Gospel of John”). The article examines such components of the saint’s trinitarian doctrine as the Hypostases’ names and modes of existence, the Trinity Persons’ mutual relations, the issue of the Holy Spirit’s procession, the continuity of theology and economy, the Hypostases’ deployment and unity, the Persons’ co-existence, the concept of the Trinity as a sequence of images. Special attention is paid to the terminological apparatus of the saint’s trinitarian discourse. St. Cyril of Alexandria (376–444) left us a huge written legacy - ten volumes of Minya’s “Greek Patrolology”. The saint's Trinitarian doctrine is much less known than his Christology, developed as part of his polemic with Nestorius. However, in the first period of his creativity, i.e. Before the start of the Nestorian crisis (428), his theology was predominantly associated with triadological issues. As is known, in the 4th century. the trinitarian question was raised by Arianism, in which two phases are distinguished: 1) the preaching of Arius (318–320), which was predominantly biblical in nature; and 2) the teaching of the Anomeans (Aetius and Eunomius) (from 360), more philosophical in type. During the first creative period of St. Cyril created (in the following chronological order) three large anti-Arian works focused on Trinitarian issues: “The Book of Treasures about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity” (Kirill, 2014) 1, “Dialogues about the Holy Trinity” (before 425) and “Interpretation of the Gospel of John” (Cyril, 2002) [Boulnois, 1994, 15–23]. According to St. Cyril, the name of each divine Hypostasis corresponds to Her way of being - τὸ πῶς ἐστι (Cyr., Thes., V, 60b). Polemicizing with the Eunomians, the saint teaches that “ungeneracy” expresses not the essence of the Father, but His image of being - τὸ εἶναι τοιῶσδε (Cyr., Thes., XXXI, 445bc). St. Cyril also adopted the pseudo-Basily expression “way of existence” (Ps.–Bas., Adv. Eun., IV.1, 681a) – ὁ τρόπος τῆς ὑπάρξεως (Cyr., In Io., V, 446e), expressed by the proper name of Hypostasis. In things, the saint distinguishes between proper names (for example, Peter, Paul), expressing the image of being of the hypostasis - τὸ ὅπως ἂν ἔχοι (Cyr., Dial. Trin., I, 416b), and general names (for example, man), denoting the essence. However, contrary to the modalists, he emphasizes that each name of the divine Hypostasis corresponds to Her real property [Boulnois, 1994, 335–337]. Just as the hymn Phil. 2:6–9, summarizing the kenosis of Christ, is for St. Cyril the biblical basis of Christology, the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 is for him the basis of the Trinitarian doctrine. The formula not only names the Persons of the Trinity, but also, according to the saint, refutes tritheism: “In reality we were baptized into one deity and dominion of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not into several gods that make up the number” (Cyr., De Trin., VII, 633d). For St. Cyril’s “name” from John 17:11 means the glory and power of the Divine (cf. Proverbs 22:1; John 5:43). The Son asks the Father to preserve His disciples because the Father is the source of divinity, but the Son also has this power. The saint brings John 17:11 closer to Phil.2:9, where the “name” means “God.” The last verse speaks of how Christ receives by humanity what He possesses by divine nature. Thus, the biblical “name” of St. Kirill can mean “glory”, “God”, i.e. the glory of divine nature. However, in places he understands John 17:11 also theologically - in the pre-eternal birth, the Father transfers His name to the Son. The son incarnates in order to receive a “name” as a person and then transmit it to people [Boulnois, 1994, 338–346]. The First Person of the Trinity is called “Father.” Using the analogy of human fatherhood, St. Cyril shows that the names of the Father and the Son are proof of their consubstantiality. The saint teaches that the Father is the Father in the proper sense of the word (Matthew 23:9). First, it means that He actually gives birth. According to the Arians, the Father is called such in an improper sense, being the cause of creation. Likewise, according to St. Cyril, the Word of God is the Son in the literal sense, by nature, while people are sons in the figurative sense, by adoption. The Father always remains the Father and does not change into the Son. Secondly, the Father is the archetype of all fatherhood (Eph. 3:15), while men are fathers in imitation. “God is the first and only truly Father, and it was in His likeness that creation was honored by Him with the title of “father”” (Cyr., Epist. Pasch., XII, 688) [Boulnois, 1994, 346–350]. In his polemic against the Arians and anthropomorphists, St. Cyril emphasizes that divine birth does not have a human character, because God is incorporeal (John 4:24). Against the Arians, who claim that birth presupposes division and flowing into the unchangeable God, the saint teaches that birth is mysterious and inexpressible (Ps. 109:3; Is. 53:8). “Everything that is born damages in some way the nature of the one who gives birth, for it comes from him as a part. Let us exclude, therefore, natural and actual birth, for it willy-nilly introduces the need to undergo an expiration (ἀπορροήν) in nature, which is extremely incapable of undergoing anything” (Cyr., Dial. Trin., II, 435a). In corporeal and incorporeal beings, one should distinguish between being (general) and types of existence (different). Therefore, the divine birth does not entail any change or rupture between the Father and the Son, but proves their consubstantiality. In turn, the Eunomians posed a dilemma: if the Father gives birth involuntarily, then He is subject to necessity, but if voluntarily, then the Father and His will preexist the Son. St. Cyril responds to this that the Father does not give birth to the Son, either voluntarily or involuntarily, but by nature. The Son is the Wisdom, Word and Will of the Father, therefore the Will of the Father cannot preexist Him (Ps. 73:24) (Cyr., Thes., VII, 92a). To justify the temporary nature of the birth of the Son, the Arians distinguished the Father in potency and actualization, using an analogy with creation. Just as the Father is always the Creator, but performed the act of creation in time, so He is always the Father, although He gave birth later. In response, St. Kirill distinguishes between the act of birth, which implies internal transformation, and the act of creation, in which we are not talking about the subject, but about the transition from potentiality to actuality. For the Father to be unchangeable, it is necessary that the Begotten coexist from eternity with His Parent. It is impossible to separate the being and the mode of existence of the Father, since He is both God and the Father, like a fire that simultaneously exists and burns [Boulnois, 1994, 350–359]. For St. Cyril's name "Father" is superior to the names "God" and "Unborn". The Old Testament revealed the name of the one God, while Christ spoke more often about the Father than about God. According to the saint, the dignity of a name depends on its correlate: the name “Father” is correlated with the Son, while “God” is associated with creation. Moreover, God gives birth to the Son before the creation of the world, and indicates precedence for St. Kirill's superiority. "Father" is a proper and personal name, while "God" is a general and essential name. “In some way the name “Father” is more appropriate in the proper sense (κυριώτερον) to God than the name “God,” for one signifies dignity, and the other shows an essential property (ἰδιότητα)” (Cyr, In Io., XI.7, 961c). Further, the name "Father" is superior to the name "Unborn", which, according to the Arians, is the proper name of God. According to St. Cyril, “Unborn” expresses not the nature of the Father, but His way of existence. "Unborn" indicates a property that is an extension of the strong meaning of the name "Father", but "Father" is superior to "Unborn", since the former implies the latter, but not vice versa (Boulnois, 1994, 359-366). For St. Cyril, the Father is beginningless (ἄναρχος) and is the beginning (ἀρχή) of the other two Hypostases. For the Arians, the coexistence of the Father and the Son implies that they are brothers. According to the saint, brothers come from the same beginning, but the Father is the beginning of the Son. Moreover, the Father does not come from the divine essence that pre-exists Him, but is its subject. “The Father and Son were not begotten from a pre-existent principle, so they must be considered as brothers. But the Father is the beginning of the Son and begets the Son; He remains the Father and is not the son of another. And the Son is also the Son and remains so. He is not by nature the brother of another" (Cyr., Thes., IV, 41c). The word ἀρχή has the meaning of temporal (beginning) and logical (principle). To prove to the Arians the divinity of the Son, the saint teaches that the Son is ἄναρχος in the sense that He has no beginning in time. The term ἀρχή can also mean dominion, principate - in this sense the Son is also ἀρχή. In John 1:1 the principle, the source, is the Father. According to St. Cyril, creations have a chronological beginning, while the Son has a logical principle - the Father. The Eunomians used John 14:28 to argue that the Son was not equal to the Father. The Fathers interpreted this passage both economically and theologically. St. Cyril uses both interpretations, but more often the first. For him, John 14:28 shows that the Son comes from the Father, which implies that they are one and the same. It is the Hypostasis of the Father, and not the divine essence, that is the beginning of the Son and the Spirit [Boulnois, 1994, 366–376]. Speaking about the Son, the Arians referred to the fact that people are also sons of God, but St. Cyril responded to this that the Son is the Son in the proper sense of the word. He distinguishes the sonship of the Son and the creatures. People are sons in an accidental, external way - by communion, imitation, grace (κατὰ χάριν), relation (σχέσει), adoption (θέσει), while the Word is an essential, internal image, by nature (κατὰ φύσιν, φύσει). The Son did not come from the essence of His Parent. The sonship of the Son is the basis of the adoption of people. By communing with the Son, people become sons of the Father. According to the saint, man was created rather in the image of the Son, since he is called to become the son of God. The Son is the ideal form according to which man was created and according to which he must also be transformed. “Since we have the Son dwelling in us, since the divine seal became present in us and became our wealth, we have become like God through Him. The form (εἶδος), surpassing all, the highest form, that is, the Son, is inscribed in our souls through the Spirit" (Cyr., Dial. Trin., V, 557b). Adam was not the son of God, since it was through the breath of Christ (John 20:22) that people received adoption as sons [Boulnois, 1994, 376–383]. The Arians believed that the Son was not an end in itself, but a stage of creative design, a mediator between the one and the many, the absolute and the world. For St. Kirill, the fact of creation is not something shameful for God. Firstly, the saint reasons, if God needed a mediator, then He would not be omnipotent. Secondly, creatures would be superior to the Son if He were created only for the purpose of creating them. Finally, Scripture does not specify the reason for the divine birth; therefore, the Son was born for Himself, and not as an instrument of creation. Moreover, the Son has a mode of existence that is different from the Father and the Spirit. The name "Son" does not mean the essence, but the own way of being of the Second Hypostasis (Cyr., Dial. Trin., II, 424a). The Father and the Son have the same essence, but One is the begetter, and the Second is the begotten. The saint also compares the Son to a word born outside the mind [Boulnois, 1994, 383–386]. Further, Father and Son are correlative names, which implies their coexistence. For St. Cyril verses 1 John 2:22-23 show that one cannot think of one without the other. In the “Dialogues on the Holy Trinity” the saint uses the same term συνδρομή (convergence) in triadology, speaking about the coexistence of the Father and the Son, and in Christology, speaking about the coexistence of divinity and humanity in Christ (later the saint will prefer the term ἕνωσις - unity) to the latter. [Durand, 1976, 373–374]. Arius testified that some used the logical category of the relative (τὰ πρός τι) to prove the coexistence of the Father and the Son. According to Aristotle, not all relatives imply simultaneous coexistence with their correlate. According to Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry and Simplicius, relatives coexist by nature. St. Cyril uses the category of relative more technically than his predecessors, but bases it on Scripture (John 8:19). In his opinion, the Father and the Son belong to the category of the relative in the strict sense of the word (τὰ πρός τι πως ἔχοντα), implying coexistence with their correlate, therefore the Son, and not the creation, should be correlated with the Father. The saint also uses the post-Aristotelian term σχέσις (connective relation), he contrasts σχέσις and φύσις: creatures are united with the Father by a random relation, while the Son is united by a natural one. St. Cyril rejects the same term in the doctrine of Christ: the Christological union is not a relative combination - συνάφεια σχετική (Cyr., QUC, 771a) - of God the Word and the man Jesus, as Nestorius teaches, but a unity by nature. Thus, the Father and the Son always necessarily coexist, and the existence of the Son does not depend on the cosmological context; it is impossible to know One without the Other (John 14:7). The mode of existence is designated by the name of the Hypostasis, and Their properties correspond to the relation to the beginning [Boulnois, 1994, 387–402]. The Holy Spirit is mentioned very briefly in the confessions of faith of the first centuries. In the 4th century. There were different currents within the pneumatological debate. For the Eunomians, the Spirit is the first creation of the Son, Tropics 2 ranked the Spirit among the angels, for Eustathius of Sebaste, Marathonius of Nicomedia and Eleusius of Cyzicus, the Spirit is neither God nor a creation. “As for our sages, some believed that He (the Spirit) is a force, others that He is a creation; still others, that He is God; others did not decide on one or the other out of respect for Scripture, which, according to them, does not clearly contain either of these terms” (Greg. Naz., Orat., ΧΧΧΙ.5, 137c). St. Cyril does not use the terms “tropics”, “Macedonians”, “pneumatomachus”, like other fathers, indicating his opponents. Pneumatomachians were based on the fact that Scripture does not call the Spirit God and that a mediator is necessary for the sanctification of people. St. Cyril objects to them that Scripture also does not classify Him among the creatures. In addition, God created man with His own hands (Gen. 2:7) and it is God in the Person of the Spirit who transforms man. Arguments for divinity and consubstantiality can be transposed from the Son to the Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit must also be declared God - συνθεολογεῖται (Cyr., Dial. Trin., VII, 634a), be associated and joined to the Father and the Son [Boulnois, 1994, 402-412]. According to St. Cyril, unlike the Son, the Spirit has a dual relationship - to the Father and the Son, He pours out from the Father through the Son. To describe the procession of the Spirit, he resorts to the image of breath (πνοή) emanating from the mouth of a person, as well as to an analogy with the human spirit. The saint reminds his opponents that the word πνεῦμα in Scripture is polysemantic and can mean the wind, the human spirit or the Holy Spirit. The name of the Holy Spirit is also applied to the Father and the Son (John 4:24; 2 Cor. 3:17), which proves their identity in essence. The exegesis of 2 Corinthians 3:17 (“The Lord is the Spirit”) in the Fathers depends on whether the Spirit is the subject or predicate of the verse. For St. Cyril, “Lord” here means the Son, and “Spirit” means the Holy Spirit. The verse shows the identity of the action of the Son and the Spirit and, therefore, their coexistence. The predicate of the verse, for St. Cyril, is the Spirit insofar as He can be applied to the Trinity. Thus, the names “Father” and “Son” show one’s own way of being, and the name “Spirit” rather indicates the essence. Revelation tells us that the attribute of the Spirit is only holiness. At the same time, fatherhood and sonship are hypostatic properties, while holiness is natural. The action of the Son is the adoption of people to God, and the action of the Spirit is their sanctification, for which the Spirit must be holy by nature [Boulnois, 1994, 412–429]. “The Spirit (of Christ) is as the form (μορφή) of our Savior Christ, He who, in a certain way, inscribes through Himself the divine likeness in us” (Cyr., Epist. Pasch., X.2, 617d–620a). The Holy Spirit is, as it were, a divine quality of holiness - ποιότης... ἁγιότητος (Cyr., In Io., X, 832a), power - δύναμις (Cyr., Thes., XXXIV, 597a), action - ἐνέργεια (Cyr., Thes., XXXIV, 580a) 3 God, but having a hypostatic character. To describe this quality, St. Kirill uses the image of the sweetness of honey or the fragrance of a flower. Quality reveals the being from which it comes, so the Spirit imparts to creation the quintessence of the divine nature. The saint uses Plotinus' terminology about quality, applying it to the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not an accidental quality of the Godhead, but an essential one. Moreover, St. Cyril sometimes calls the Spirit “the Kingdom of God” because He infuses man with the Father and the Son (Luke 17:21). He identifies the Spirit with the anointing that imparts kingship to Christ. According to St. Kirill, the gift of the Spirit is His Face; he professes the direct indwelling of the Holy Spirit in man. Further, the Holy Spirit is the fulfillment (συμπλήρωμα) of the Trinity. This term is borrowed from Neoplatonic philosophy, where it means something that completes the essence (the heat of fire), i.e. not an accidental, but an essential quality. The word τέλος can mean both “end” and “perfection,” and therefore the Spirit completes the Trinity and perfects people [Boulnois, 1994, 429–442]. Pneumatology St. Cyril is different from Cappadocian. For St. Basil the Great, the hypostatic property of the Spirit is holiness - ἁγιασμός (Bas., Epist., 214.4, 789b), and for St. Gregory the Theologian - procession, ἐκπόρευσις (Greg. Naz., Orat., ΧΧΧΙ.8–9, 141bc). St. Cyril does not give Him a single name, since it is impossible to call Him properly. The Holy Spirit is the quintessence, pleroma, completion of the Trinity, He expresses the spirituality and holiness of the Father and the Son and is the quality of the other two Persons, their generalization, energy, sanctifying power 4. According to St. Cyril, just as the Son is the Father's own divine essence, inasmuch as He proceeds from it, so is the Spirit (Cyr., In Io., IX, 809d). To say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father is to say that He proceeds from the divine essence. The Father gives ownership of His nature to the Spirit, pouring It out of Himself. At the same time, the Holy Spirit is not only the Father's own, but also the Son's. He is the Son's own Spirit, since He proceeds from the divine essence of the Son (Cyr., In Io., x, 925bc). The Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit of Truth” (John 15:26; 16:13), but Christ is the Truth (John 14:6). The Son and the Spirit are called Paracletes (John 14:16; 1 John 2:1–2), which proves the identity of Their essence and commonality of action. St. Cyril calls the Spirit the Mind (νοῦς) of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16) and likens it to human breath (John 20:22). The Spirit is not other than the Son by nature, but by its own mode of existence. He is inseparable from the Son, as the human spirit is from man [Boulnois, 1994, 445–452]. According to St. Cyril, everything that the Father has, the Son also has, including the Spirit. For the saint, John 15:26 indicates the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (“Truth”) and the Father, as well as the divinity of the Son by virtue of the joint possession of the Spirit. Appearing to be personal to both the Father and the Son, the Spirit is common to them. Since the Spirit is not a hypostatic property, like fatherhood and sonship, He is the common good of both. The Father at birth gives everything to the Son, including the Holy Spirit (John 16:15) (Cyr., In Io., XI, 932bc). At the same time, the Spirit receives benefit from the Son. The Pneumatomachians used John 16:14 to prove that the Spirit is inferior to the Son inasmuch as He participates in Him. For St. Cyril, the procession of the Spirit from the Son shows the identity of their nature. He does not participate in the Son, but possesses what the Son has. To demonstrate the consubstantiality of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Kirill uses the image of a fragrance that receives its power from a flower, but has the same essence as the flower. In addition, John 15:14 speaks of the same words of the Son and the Spirit, which proves their common action, and therefore the identity of essence. For Markel of Ancyra, the verses John 15:26 (the Spirit proceeds from the Father) and John 16:14 (the Spirit receives from the Son) are incompatible, so he concludes that the Son and the Spirit are not hypostases, but extensions of the Godhead. In turn, Eusebius establishes a distinction between the Hypostases, but introduces a hierarchy between Them. St. Cyril fights against two heretical extremes - Sabellianism (the confusion of the Hypostases) and Arianism (Their subordination) [Boulnois, 1994, 452–463]. In the incarnation the Son continues to possess His own Spirit. The Arians used John 1:32 to deny the deity of Christ. According to their logic, if St. John the Baptist saw the Spirit descend on Jesus, which means Christ did not possess Him before. St. Cyril gives several arguments to his opponents. First, he contrasts the concepts of fullness and emptiness. The Son, complete by nature (John 1:16) and equal to God, possesses the Spirit like the Father, but chooses emptiness-kenosis (Phil. 2:6-8) and acquires Him as a man. The kenosis of the Word consists in the fact that He, as it were, is deprived of the Spirit in order to receive It into His flesh and infuse It into human nature. The Spirit abides (ἐμφιλοχωρέω) and rests (ἀναπαύω) on Christ, unlike Adam. “It was imperative that He, having become man, receive the Spirit: since He did not know and does not know anything sinful, the Spirit will henceforth abide in Him, rest on Him as on the Firstfruits of the race and its second Root” (Cyr., Dial. Trin., VI, 591c). Secondly, according to St. Cyril, the anointing of the Spirit goes back even to the moment of the virgin conception (Luke 1:35) (Cyr., In Io., II, 125ab). In this case, the descent of the Spirit at baptism is a sign of the reality accomplished at the time of conception. The saint refers to John 17:19, which says that Christ sanctifies Himself. To interpret this verse, St. Cyril points out that the verb ἁγιάζω in Scripture has the following meanings: to sanctify, to set aside (Ex. 13:2), to offer as a sacrifice (2 Cor. 5:19), to be prompted by God to do His will (Is. 13:3), to have a part in the Holy Spirit. The recipient of the anointing of the Spirit is humanity, its finality is soteriological and economic. The Incarnate Word is both the subject and the object of the anointing [Boulnois, 1994, 463–477]. Also interesting is the understanding of St. Kirill so-called "John's Pentecost" (John 20:22). He establishes a parallel between Genesis 2:7 and John 20:22. God gives the Holy Spirit to Adam, he loses It due to the Fall, but Christ restores It to man. “The Only Begotten, having become man and finding human nature deprived of its ancient and original good, decided to restore it, rewarding it, so to speak, from the source of His own fullness with these words: “Receive the Holy Spirit”; through bodily breathing, obviously, He well depicted the nature of the Spirit" (Cyr., Dial. Trin., IV, 532de). The Son is the distributor (χορηγός) and giver (συνδοτήρ) of the Spirit together with the Father. While for many fathers the breath from John 20:22 is lower in significance than the event of Pentecost (Acts 2:3), for St. Cyril, the first is the most important episode of the renewal of nature, the moment of the gift of the Holy Spirit. At Pentecost, the apostles received the gift of tongues [Boulnois, 1994, 478–482]. Between St. Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrrhus at one time a conflict arose around the ninth anathematism of Nestorius (from the “Twelve Anathematisms” appended to the third letter to Nestorius in 430), in which the saint condemns those who say that when Christ performed miracles, He resorted to external force, and not to his own Spirit. In this controversy, St. Cyril argues with the Antiochians: for him, Christ is not an ordinary person, spirit-bearing, He did not receive the Spirit from outside, but the Spirit is His own. Anathematism condemns the division of the one Christ, it is composed against the Christology of the Adoptian type. For St. For Cyril, the same subject of the incarnate Word sanctifies and is sanctified, while for Nestorius the man Jesus perceived by the Word is sanctified. The antagonism of pneumatologies is explained by the difference in Christologies, Alexandrian and Antiochian. According to Theodoret, like Nestorius, it is not the Word, but human nature that is anointed by the Spirit. His Antiochene Christology considers the communicatio idiomatum unthinkable. Subsequently, the conflict between St. Cyril and Theodoret were addressed during the dispute about the Filioque. For Theodoret, the property of the Spirit to the Son means the identity of nature and that He comes from the Father, and not that the Spirit receives its existence (ὕπαρξις) from (ἐξ) or through (διά) the Son (John 15:26; 1 Cor. 2:12). Theodoret accused St. Cyril in Macedonianism (Theod., Epist., 151, 1417d), since, in his opinion, the saint argued that the Spirit receives its created existence from the Son [Boulnois, 1994, 482–492]. Catholic authors often quote from St. Cyril of Alexandria to substantiate the Latin position regarding the double procession of the Holy Spirit (Filioque). In response, Orthodox theologians argue that the corresponding expressions of the saint (“through the Son”, “from the Son”) relate exclusively to economy. Firstly, as M.O. notes. Boulnois, at St. Cyril, the term οἰκονομία means God's plan of salvation (especially the Incarnation), His adaptation to human weaknesses, or His pedagogy. The saint clarifies whether Christ pronounces this or that word as a man, “economically” (οἰκονομικῶς), or as God, “theologically” (θεολογία). We are not talking here about the opposition between divine actions for us (oikonomia) and internal relations in the Godhead (theology). Secondly, if we use these terms in modern usage, the researcher notices that, according to St. Cyril, theology is non-autonomous, it is accessible through oikonomia, for example, the identity of the action of the Persons of the Trinity indicates the unity of Their essence. The reason for the distinction between economics and theology was the Arian crisis. St. Cyril distinguishes two planes - the divinity of the Word and His kenosis, but he preserves the continuity of theology and economy, the unity between the Word and Christ; the same Subject is born from the Father in eternity and from Mary in time. The economic missions of the Son and the Spirit reveal Their own way of being in the same order: Father - Son - Spirit. In the economy, the Father becomes the adoptive Father, the Son accomplishes adoption, and the Spirit sanctifies people. Moreover, oikonomia is a means for man to gain knowledge of God. St. Cyril classifies some verses as both theology and economy (eg John 3:35; John 20:22, etc.). Sometimes it is very difficult for a saint to determine the context of the procession of the Spirit, since temporary missions continue eternal processions [Boulnois, 1994, 500–511]. On the one hand, St. Cyril teaches that the Holy Spirit “exists from the essence of the Son and God” (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ὑπάρχειν) (Cyr., Thes., XXXIII, 573c) and that He “proceeds naturally (πρόεισι δὲ φυσικῶς) from her" (Cyr., In Io., X, 925c). On the other hand, the saint confesses that the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son, and not only in the economic aspect. “Because, on the one hand, the Holy Spirit, coming into us, makes us conform to God; and since, on the other hand, He proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is clear that He is from the divine essence, proceeding essentially in and from it (οὐσιωδῶς ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς προϊόν)” (Cyr., Thes., XXXIV, 585a). “The Spirit, essentially (οὐσιωδῶς) pouring out (προχεόμενον) from Both (ἐξ ἀμφοῖν), that is, from (ἐκ) the Father through (διὰ) the Son, is (the Spirit of) God the Father and also the Son" (Cyr., De ador., I, 148a). In the above quotations it is clear that we are talking about the eternal, and not temporary procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. The procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son means that He proceeds from the Father as Source through the Son as Mediator. The Spirit pours out from the Father as the Source (προχεῖται ἀπὸ πηγῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς), but the Son receives everything that belongs to the Father, including participation in the production of the Spirit. Although St. Cyril uses the term ἐκπόρευσις (Cyr., In Is., V.3, 1276b), but not as a terminus technicus like St. Gregory the Theologian, for whom “proceeding from the Father” expresses the Spirit’s own image of being. St. Cyril uses the verb πρόειμι, speaking about the procession of the Spirit from the essence of the Father, from the Son, from the Father through the Son, from the Father and the Son, and also sometimes about the birth of the Son. Also in pneumatological discourse he uses the verbs προ(εκ)κύπτω and προχέομαι. The noun πρόοδος 5 is applied to the birth of the Son, as well as to the procession of the Spirit. According to the conclusion of M.O. Boulnois, St. Cyril never uses the verb ἐκπορεύομαι in the context of the relationship of the Spirit to the Son 6. Also, according to the French researcher, St. Cyril cannot be counted either among the filioquists or their opponents, since he remains outside of this problematic, still alien to the 5th century. The main concern of the saint was to show the consubstantiality, and not the relationship of the Hypostases [Boulnois, 1994, 522–529]. To express the Trinitarian paradox of St. Kirill generally uses a two-phase scheme of double movement, diastole and systole, that is, unfolding into the Three Hypostases and collapsing into the unity of nature. This scheme is present in St. Dionysius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Isidore Pelusiot. To describe the divine expansion of St. Kirill uses derivatives of the verbs εὐρύνω, ἐξαπλόω, πλατύνω. He opposes the Jewish and Sabellian tendencies, as well as the tritheists and the Arians, and therefore, in his opinion, no side of the process should be radicalized. At the same time, the Alexandrian saint emphasizes unity against Arianism. “We are not at all collapsing (συστελοῦμεν) the nature of the Divinity in the Jewish way into the one and only God the Father, but expanding (κατευρύνοντες) it, so to speak, into the holy and consubstantial Trinity and unfolding (διαστέλλοντες) through the quality of the Persons and the properties of the Hypostases, we fold (συστελοῦμεν) it again into one God, due to the identity of the essence” (Cyr., De ador., VI, 412d). It should be noted that this scheme is not purely epistemological, but also reflects the ontological dynamics of the Trinity [Boulnois, 1994, 531–536]. Another model of St. Kirill shows the mutual presence of each Hypostasis in the Two Others. In doing so, he relies on John: 10:38, 14:11, 17:21. Although St. Athanasius and Cyril developed this doctrine, but only in pseudo-Cyril co-immanence receives the technical term “perichoresis” (περιχώρησις; circumincessio or circuminsessio). St. Cyril rebels against the Arian exegesis of these verses, which establishes the subordination of the Hypostases and sees immanence only in the moral aspect. The verb χωρέω was first used to express the divine immanence of creation, but the saint uses it to speak of the coexistence of the Father and the Son. “The Savior Himself said somewhere (John:10:38) that He is in the Father, and likewise the Father is in Him. But it is obvious to everyone that it is not proper to think that the Father is contained (χωρητόν) in the Son, as a body within a body or a thing within a thing, or, on the contrary, that the Son in some way takes the place of the Father. The Father is in Him, and He is in the Father, through the identity of essence without difference, through the unity of nature and likeness” (Cyr., In Io., I.3, 28d). The Arians taught that the unity of the Father and the Son is similar to the unity of Christians (John: 17:22), that is, due to the identity of the will. The saint objects to them that the connection between the Father and the Son is not moral, but natural and essential. In addition, the Arians said that the immanence of Persons is no different from the divine dwelling in man (Acts: 17:28). St. Cyril objects to them - in this case, Christ would be an ordinary person. People participate in God through their virtues or by imitation, while the Son abides in Him through a community of essence. According to St. Kirill, the deployment of Hypostases does not entail removal (ἀναχώρησις), since Each resides in the Other. Anachoresis is overcome thanks to a doctrine later called perichoresis. Mutual immanence shows both identity and difference. The Son abides in the Father as He proceeds from Him, and the Father in the Son as His adequate manifestation. The Spirit dwells in the Son, since it receives His existence from Him, and the Son dwells in the Spirit as His Image. Thus, co-immanence is dynamic; it is a mutual translation of common natural properties. For this reason, the divine Hypostases know each other perfectly, and a person can know one Hypostasis through another [Boulnois, 1994, 536–548]. According to the classical ancient concept, the image is ontologically lower than the archetype. The Son is called the image of the Father in Col:1:15; Heb:1:3; Prem:7:26. For Arius, the Son is the image of God just like people. St. Cyril distinguishes several meanings of the image: the identity of nature (the Son in the understanding of the saint); similarity of aspect (Son in the understanding of the Arians); similarity in morals and will (man as the image of God); equality of honor and dignity; material representation. According to St. Cyril, the Son is a similar (ἀπαράλλακτος) seal of the essence and a similar (ἐμφερής) image of the Father (Cyr., In Io., IX, 779d). The saint's image terminology includes the nouns εἰκών, ὁμοίωσις, ἐμφέρεια, ὁμοιότης, χαρακτήρ [Boulnois, 1994, 549–553]. St. Cyril understands the Trinity as a sequence of images. The discourse of the image also extends to the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son to prove their consubstantiality. However, the saint does not say that the Spirit is the image of the Father, but the image of the Son, who, in turn, is the image of the Father. This is why the Spirit transforms man into the image of the Son. The Son remains the image of the Father also in the incarnation. Therefore, people are called to become like the Son, and not the Spirit, by becoming sons of the Father. “To put it plausibly, it is necessary that we, who are called to be called sons of God, should rather become in the image of the Son, so that the seal of sonship may likewise be manifested in us” (Cyr., Dogm. sol., 373d, 558). Thus, at St. Kirill contains the following functions of the image: ontological, epistemological and soteriological. Firstly, the terminology of the image represents consubstantiality and describes the co-immanence of the Hypostases. Secondly, the epistemological process ascends from the image to the archetype: Spirit - Son - Father (John: 14:9, 14:6). In the context of the discourse about the image, the saint encounters a non-terminological use of the term πρόσωπον, when, for example, interpreting the psalms, he says that the “Face” of God the Father is the Son (Ps: 4:7, 16:15, 43:4, 88:16, 138:7) (Cyr., In Io., I.8, 69e), and the Son is the Spirit (Ps:139:7). Finally, the theology of St. Kirill does not separate epistemology from soteriology. The Son and the Spirit not only reveal the Father and the Son to people, respectively, but also transform them from image to archetype [Boulnois, 1994, 557–562]. The co-immanence of the Hypostases implies the circulation of mutual gifts in the depths of the Trinity. The image receives everything from the archetype and gives it glory. For the Arians, the fact that the Son and the Spirit received gifts from the Father is proof of Their lower ontological status (for this they used the verses John: 3:35, 5:26; Matt: 11:27, 28:18; John: 12:49, 14:24, 5:19, 5:30 - in relation to the Son, and John: 16:13, 16:14 - in relation to the Spirit). At St. Cyril presents two types of exegesis of these verses - economic and theological. On the one hand, Christ receives gifts according to humanity not for Himself, but for transmission to people. On the other hand, the Son receives gifts because of his eternal relationship with His Source. However, this does not mean a lower position for the Son and the Spirit, since They have all the benefits from eternity. In turn, the Father, in giving, does not undergo any diminution or separation, but continues to possess everything in the Son [Boulnois, 1994, 562–567]. An image is, in a way, a picture that describes its archetype. The image (the Son) is present in His model (the Father) as His origin, while the model is present in His image as His expression. St. Cyril uses the metaphor of a painting - the Son is a perfect reproduction of the Father. On the one hand, the Son is the Word of the Father, having the function of revelation. St. Cyril even says that the Word (λόγος) is the definition (ὅρος) of the essence of the Father (John: 8:55) (Cyr., In Io., VI, 582de). Revelation by image has two types - vision and word. The Son and the Spirit reveal Their archetypes, but They are also their hermeneuts and exegetes (Isa:9:6; John:16:14) [Boulnois, 1994, 567–569]. At the same time, each Hypostasis glorifies the one it manifests, and vice versa. Interpreting John:17:5, St. Cyril says that Christ asks to be glorified not because He lacks honor, but in order to be revealed to people. The saint understands the word δόξα not in the biblical (honor), but in the classical ancient sense (knowledge). The same can be said of the Holy Spirit (John:16:14). The Son is also glorified through his actions on earth in the incarnation: through miracles, passion, resurrection. In the kenotic discourse of St. Cyril, there are two trends - on the one hand, Christ is deprived of glory, and on the other, He never lost it, despite his devastation. According to the saint, Christ, praying to the Father to glorify Him (John:12:27-28), asks for the glory that He possesses eternally, also for His flesh. He receives glory in resurrection and even in suffering. The sufferings of Christ are glorious because they are voluntary and in them the Son is revealed as the image of God-love (1 John: 4: 8) [Boulnois, 1994, 569–577]. Pluralism of models for the articulation of the Trinitarian paradox in St. Kirill is explained by the fact that he considers this a secret that surpasses any thought or word. However, one scheme is central to his theology: “All things are from (παρά) the Father, through (διά) the Son, in (ἐν) the Holy Spirit.” It is “the key schema of this triadology” [Durand, 1976, 75]. The model is used by the saint both in oikonomia and in theology, and simultaneously shows the general action of the three Hypostases and the way of being characteristic of each. Based on Eph:4:6, already St. Irenaeus of Lyons spoke of the Father as the source, the Son as the mediator and the Spirit as the finisher of the economy (Iren., Adv. haer., V.18.2). This scheme can be considered in two directions - the movement of descent and ascension. On the one hand, the transmission of divine grace to people comes from the Father through the Son in the Spirit. But the Spirit, which is the source of all divine benefits for people, is also bestowed from the Father through the Son. According to St. Cyril, the Spirit proceeds through the Son both in an eternal trinitarian relationship and in a temporary embassy into the world. The Father reveals Himself through the Son in the Spirit. On the other hand, the transformation of people begins in the Spirit and ascends through the Son to the Father. The scheme “in the Spirit through the Son to the Father” is valid both in the epistemological plane of knowledge of God and in the ontological plane of likeness to God. It is possible because the Hypostases are mutual images and are immanent to each other. This formula is extremely important for expressing the Trinitarian paradox. It demonstrates the connection between theology and oikonomia, shows the unity of action of the Hypostases, but also the action of each according to its own mode of existence [Boulnois, 1994, 580–583]. Thus, the Trinitarian paradox is at the center of St. Cyril in the period before the Nestorian dispute. The saint tries to combine unity and difference, common action and various relationships in the Trinity. According to St. Cyril, this paradox is characteristic of Christian thought, in contrast to philosophers, Jews and heretics. At the same time, the saint insists, especially against Eunomius, on the boundaries of the knowledge of God and on the inadequacy of human language. Summarize the main provisions of the Trinitarian doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria can be done as follows. The names of the Hypostases denote the mode of existence characteristic of each, but it is more difficult to identify the mode of existence of the Spirit. The Spirit completes and fulfills the Trinity. It is characteristic of the Father and the Son, even in the Incarnation. Christ restores the Spirit in man, lost by him as a result of the Fall. The temporal missions of the Son and the Spirit (oikonomia) are a reflection of Their eternal processions (theology). The Trinity is characterized by the double movement of expansion and collapse (diastole and systole), as well as the co-immanence of the Hypostases. The Son is the image of the Father, and the Spirit is the Son. The formula “all things are from the Father through the Son in the Spirit” is key for St. Cyril, it is applicable both at the economic and theological levels. In expressing the Trinitarian paradox, the saint combines the unity of St. Athanasius with the distinction of St. Cappadocians, but he remains first and foremost an Alexandrian, emphasizing unity. Triadological reflection of St. Cyril also influenced his Christology, in which he insists on the unity of the subject and the diversity of natures and condemns their Nestorian separation. The unity of the Persons of the Trinity and the natures of Christ is not an act of will. Thus, the Christological paradox is rooted in the Trinitarian. 1. Bas., Epist. – Basile de Césarée. Letters: 3 vol. / Y. Courtonne. Paris, 1957, 1961, 1966. 2. Cyr., De ador. – Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate // PG. T. 68. Col. 132–1125. 3. Cyr., Dial. Trin. – Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De sancta Trinitate Dialogi VII / Introd., ed., trad. et notes G.-M. De Durand // SC. T. 231, T. 237, T. 246. 4. Cyr., Dogm. sol. – Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De dogmatum solutione // Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Joannem / Ed. P. E. Pusey // Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini opera. T. 3. Oxonii, 1872. P. 547–566. 5. Cyr., Epist. Pasch. – Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistula (homiliae) paschales I–XXX. Epistulae I–VI/Introd. gen. P. Evieux, introd. crit., texte grec W. H. Burns, trad. et notes L. Arragon, M.-O. Boulnois, P. Evieux, M. Forrat, B. Meunier // SC. T. 372; Epistulae VII–XI / Dir. P. Evieux, texte grec W. H. Burns, trad. et notes L. Arragon, P. Evieux, R. Monier // SC. T. 392; Epistulae XII–XVII / Texte grec W. H. Burns, trad. et notes M.-O. Boulnois, B. Meunier // SC. T. 434; Epistulae XVIII–XXX // PG. T. 77. Col. 800–982. 6. Cyr., In Io. – Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Joannem / Ed. P. E. Pusey // Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini opera: 7 vol. Oxonii, 1872. T. 3. P. 1–728; T. 4. P. 1–737; T. 5. P. 1–171. 7. Cyr., In Is. – Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarius in Isaiam prophetam // PG. T. 70. Col. 9–1449. 8. Cyr., QUC – Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Quod unus sit Christus / Introd., ed., trad. et notes G.-M. De Durand // SC. T. 97. P. 302–515. 9 . Cyr., Thes. – Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate // PG. T. 75. Col. 9–656. 10. Greg. Naz., Orat. – Grégoire de Nazianze. Discourse. 24–26 / J. Mossay // SC. T. 284; 27–31 / P. Gallay, M. Jourjon // SC. T. 250; 32–37 / P. Gallay. S.C. T. 318; 38–41 / C. Moreschini, P. Gallay // SC. T. 358; 42–43 / J. Bernardi // SC. T. 384. 11. Iren., Adv. haer. – Irénée de Lyon. Contre les Hérésies / A. Rousseau. Paris, 1984. 12. Ioan. Dam., Fid. orth. – Joannes Damascenus. Expositio fidei orthodoxae // PG. T. 94. Col. 790–1228. 13. Ps.-Bas., Adv. Eun. – Ps.-Basileus Caesariensis. Adversus Eunomium, IV–V // PG. T. 29. Col. 671–774. 14. Theod., Epist. – Theodoretus Cyrensis. Epistolae // PG. T. 83. Col. 1173–1409. 15. Cyril (2002) – Cyril of Alexandria, St. Interpretation of the Gospel of John, IV–XII / Trans. M. Muretov // Works of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. Book 3. M., 2002. 16. Cyril (2014) – Cyril of Alexandria, St. Book of Treasures about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity / Trans. and comm. R.V. Yashunsky, entry. Art. G.I. Benevich. St. Petersburg, 2014. 17. Nikolai Mefonsky (1897) - Nikolai Mefonsky. Recollections from what is written against the Latins in various works // Arseny (Ivashchenko), bishop. Two unpublished works of Nicholas, Bishop of Metho, a 12th-century writer. Novgorod, 1897. pp. 5–49. 18. Boulnois (1994) – Boulnois M.-O. Le paradoxe trinitaire chez Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Hermeneutique, analyzes philosophiques et argumentation théologique. Paris, 1994. 19. Durand (1976) – Durand de G. M. Notes et explanations // Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Dialogues sur la Trinité. T. 1 // SC. T. 231. P. 359–404. 20. Liébaert (1951) – Liebaert J. La doctrine christologique de saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie avant la querelle nestorienne. Lille, 1951. 21. Bolotov (1914) – Bolotov V.V. On the issue of Filioque. St. Petersburg, 1914. 22. Losev (2016) - Losev A. From Homer to Proclus: A brief history of ancient aesthetics. St. Petersburg, 2016. 23. Lurie (1992) – Lurie V.M. The relationship of the Filioque problem with the doctrine of deification among Orthodox theologians after Saint Photius // Patrology. Philosophy. Hermeneutics. (Proceedings of the Higher Religious and Philosophical School). St. Petersburg, 1992. No. 1. P. 1–19. 24. Fokin (2014) – Fokin A.R. Formation of the Trinitarian doctrine in Latin patristics. M., 2014. In his monograph, J. Liebert showed that a third of the “Book of Treasures” by St. Cyril is a reworking of the work “Against the Arians” by St. Athanasius the Great. At the same time, St. Cyril used 4/5 of St. Athanasius, that is, all the essential content [Liébaert, 1951, 22–43]. Probably St. Athanasius called his opponents "tropicals" because they often resorted to the use of tropes, that is, linguistic images of Scripture, to interpret this or that Bible verse in their favor. Subsequently St. Nikolai Mefonsky will also consider the hypostasis of the Spirit as natural, essential and hypostatic energy, i.e. possessing its own hypostasis (Nikolai Mefonsky, 1897, 29–30). At the same time, the Spirit is considered as the “generative” energy of the Father, and the Son as the “generative” [Lurie, 1992, 7]. Thus, in his pneumatological constructions, St. Cyril, predominantly remaining within the framework of the Eastern triadological paradigm, at the same time turns out to be close to the Western Trinitarian doctrine, which dates back to Tertullian and was finally formed by Bl. Augustine, within the framework of which the Holy Spirit is conceived as a substantial connection (connexio, conjunctio, copulatio, communio) of the Trinity [Fokin, 2014, 683]. This term was used by Neoplatonists, especially Proclus, in relation to the explanation of the process of deployment of hypostases (the One, the Mind, the Soul), understood as successive dialectical emanations [Losev, 2016, 253]. Other Eastern Fathers may have used this term with the expression "through the Son." For example, St. John of Damascus writes that the Holy Spirit is the Power of the Father, proceeding (ἐκπορευομένη) from (ἐκ) Him through (δι’) the Son, and the Spirit of the Son, proceeding (ἐκπορευόμενον) from (ἐκ) the Father through (δι’) Him (Ioan. Dam., Fid. orth., I.12, 849ab). And “theologians have the right to see in this διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ not a simple private paternal opinion, but the universally authorized θεολογούμενον of the Orthodox East” [Bolotov, 1914, 63].