Collected Letters - Part 1 — Severus of Antioch

----------------------------------------

A COLLECTION OF LETTERS

OF SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH

----------------------------------------

> I. -------- OF THE SAME 1 A LETTER TO OECUMENIUS 2 THE COUNT 3, ABOUT PROPERTIES AND OPERATIONS, WHICH IS OF THOSE WRITTEN BEFORE EPISCOPACY. [508-12 AD]

----------------------------------------

A COLLECTION OF LETTERS

OF SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH

----------------------------------------

> I. -------- OF THE SAME 1 A LETTER TO OECUMENIUS 2 THE COUNT 3, ABOUT PROPERTIES AND OPERATIONS, WHICH IS OF THOSE WRITTEN BEFORE EPISCOPACY. [508-12 AD]

We also have in the God-inspired Scripture supplies of humility, and 508-12. no lack of arguments to bring us down and help us to keep silence. If you, as if you were about to go up to Mt. Sinai, shrink from writing 'to such a man' (referring to me), and think fit to use David's words which he says to those who were urging him to take Saul's daughter in marriage, «Is it a small thing in your eyes that I should be son-in-law to the king? »4, while I am a poor man and inglorious, I also, when required to make answer to your question, make use of these words: «I am not a prophet, nor the son of prophets, but I am a shepherd, and a scraper of sycamore fruit»5, if it is not too much for me to say even this: for I am not worthy to tell the righteousnesses of God, and to take his covenant in |4 my mouth6. However, since the time of the present struggles does not allow silence, I accept an honourable defeat from you, and turn to the question. And in this I defeat you, since I show that you do not practise humility in a philosophic spirit7. As to your statement that the holy old men called bold speech8 fire or warmth, I say this, that we must not use this method of speaking without discrimination, but there are occasions for using it and circumstances to which to apply it. Our Lord in the Gospels in many parables teaches us in the case of spiritual petitions to knock without ceasing and display a praiseworthy audacity. And the saying of the Proverbs also instructs us that 'there is shame which brings sin, and there is shame which brings glory and grace'9. Know then, mighty man, (for I now return to make answer) that for us to anathematize those who speak of properties of natures (I mean the Godhead and the manhood of which the one Christ consists) is not permissible. Flesh does not renounce its existence as flesh, even if it has become God's flesh, nor has the Word departed from his nature, even if he has been hypostatically united to flesh which possesses a rational and intelligent soul: but the difference also is |5 preserved, and the propriety in the form of natural characteristics of the natures of which Emmanuel consists, since the flesh was not converted into the nature of the Word, nor was the Word changed into flesh. We mean in the matter of natural characteristics, and not that those which were naturally united are singly and individually separated and divided from one another: this is the assertion of those who cleave our one Lord Jesus Christ into two natures. For, since the union in hypostasis is acknowledged, it follows that those which were united are not separated from one another; but there is one Son, and one nature of God the Word incarnate himself, as the holy Cyril also says in the work against Diodorus: «Let him know therefore that the body which was born at Bethlehem, even if it is not the same as the Word from God and the Father (I mean in natural characteristics), yet nevertheless became his, not anyone else's separate from the Son: and there is recognised to be one Son and Christ and Lord and Word who took flesh» 10.

Those therefore who confess one incarnate nature of God the Word, and do not confuse the elements of which he consists, recognise also the propriety of those that were joined in union (and a property is that which |6 exists in the form of a manifestation of natural differences), and not that we should ascribe the acts of the manhood only to the human nature, and impute again those of the Godhead separately to God the Word, but they recognise the difference only, not admitting a division: for the principle of union does not admit of division. Hear what the holy and wise doctor Cyril says in the second volume11 of the work against the blasphemies of Nestorius: «For between Godhead and manhood I also allow that there is great distinction and distance. For the things which have been named on the principle of manner of existence are clearly different, and in no point like one another. But, when the mystery in Christ is introduced among us, the principle of union is not oblivious of difference", but rejects division, not by mixing or commingling the natures with one another, but that, after the Word of God has partaken of flesh and blood, he is even so understood and named as one Son» 12. But, if Emmanuel is one, consisting of Godhead and manhood which have a perfect existence according to their own principle, and the hypostatic union without confusion shows the difference of those which have been joined in one in dispensatory union, but rejects division, both the elements |7 which naturally belong to the manhood have come to belong to the very Godhead of the Word, and those which belong to the Word himself have come to belong to the very manhood which he hypostatically united to him. On this subject we will again adduce the sacred words of Cyril. In the prosphonetikon to the religious king Theodosius he spoke as follows: «As therefore it came to belong to the humanity to be the Only one, because it had been united to the Word in a dispensatory union, so it came to belong to the Word to be 'the first-born among many brethren'13, because of the union with flesh»14. Gregory the Theologian15 also in the letter to Gledonius wrote words which agree with him as follows: «As the natures are mingled, so also are the appellations; and they run into one another on the principle of coalescence»16. Do not let the term 'mingle' disturb you: for he used it very clearly and without danger5 with the intention of denoting the primary union: for, where there is a union of something incorporeal with a body, no danger17 anywhere arises from mingling. For this is manifestly a quality of fluid bodies, to be confounded together by intertwining, and, so to speak, come out of their nature. We therefore anathematize not |8 those who confess the properties of the natures of which the one Christ consists, but those who separate the properties, and apportion them to each nature apart.

When the one Christ has once been divided (and he is divided by the fact that they speak of two natures after the union), with the natures which have been cut asunder into a duality and separated into a distinct diversity go the operations and properties which are the offspring of this division, as the words of Leo's impious letter state in what he said: «For each of the forms effects in partnership with the other that which belongs to itself, the Word doing that which belongs to the Word, and the body performing the things which belong to the body» 18. Against these things it is well to set the much-honoured words of the holy Cyril which refute impiety. In the Scholion about the coal he speaks as follows: «Nevertheless we may see in the coal as in a figure that God the Word was united to the manhood, but has not cast off being that which he is, but rather changed what had been assumed or united into his glory and operation. For, as fire when it takes hold of wood and is introduced into it, prevails over it, and does |9 not make it cease being wood, but rather changes it into the appearance and force of fire, and performs all its own acts in it, and is already reckoned as one with it, so understand in the case of Christ also. For, since God was ineffably united with manhood, he has preserved it as what we say it is, and he himself also has remained what he was. But, after he has once been united, he is reckoned as one with it, appropriating its qualities to himself, but he himself also carried on the operation of his nature in it»19. If 20 then the Word changed the manhood which he had hypostatically united to him, not into his nature, for he remained that which he was, but into his glory and operation, and things which manifestly belong to the flesh have come to belong to the Word himself, how shall we allow that each of the forms performs its own acts? But we must anathematize those who confine the one Christ in two natures and say that each of the natures performs its own acts. Between the things performed and done by the one Christ the difference is great. Some of them are acts befitting the divinity, while others are human. For example, to walk and travel in bodily form upon |10 the earth is without contention human; but to bestow on those who are maimed in the feet and cannot walk upon the ground at all the power of walking like sound persons is God-befitting. Yet the one Word incarnate performed the latter and the former, and the one nature did not perform the one, and the other the other; nor, because the things performed are different, shall we on this account rightly define two natures or forms as operating. Again the Tome of Leo says: «For each of the natures preserves its own property without diminution» 21, distributing the properties to the two natures severally, as one who divides the one and only Christ into two natures. For the property of the natures of which Emmanuel consists, which is shown in the natural characteristics, continues constant and fixed, as the holy Cyril also says in the second letter to Succensus: «But, while each of them both remains and is perceived in the property which is.

by nature, according to the principle which has just been enunciated by us, the ineffable and incomprehensible union has shown us one nature of the Son, yet, as I have said, an incarnate nature»22. But God the Word did not permit his flesh in all things to undergo the passions proper to it, in order that its |11 property might be preserved undiminished, as the impious disputer said. For observe what the wise doctor Cyril says, in answer to the objections made by Theodoret, in the defence of the tenth anathema: «When the lowness arising from the exinanition seems hard to you, wonder greatly at the love of the Son toward us. For, what you say is a mean thing, this he did voluntarily for your sake. He wept in human fashion, that he might take away your weeping. He feared by dispensation, inasmuch as he sometimes permitted his flesh to undergo the passions proper to it, that he might make us valiant»23. If he sometimes permitted his flesh by dispensation to undergo the passions proper to it, he did not preserve its property undiminished: for in many instances it is seen not to have undergone the things which manifestly belong to its nature; for it was united to the Word, the Maker of nature. The Word therefore who had become incarnate walked upon the sea, and after his death under the wound of the lance caused a stream of salvation to well forth from his side: again, after the Resurrection, he came in while the doors were shut, and appeared to the disciples in the house; whom he also allowed to touch him, showing that his flesh was tangible and solid, and of one essence24 with us, and was also |12 superior to corruption; and thereby he subverted the theory of phantasy. It belongs therefore to those who part the one Christ into two natures and dissolve the unity to say, «For each of the natures preserves its property unimpaired». But those who believe that, after God the Word had been hypostatically united to flesh that possessed an intelligent soul, he performed all his own acts in it, and changed it not into his nature (far be it! ), but into his glory and operation, no longer seek the things that manifestly belong to the flesh without diminution, to which flesh the things that manifestly belong by nature to the Godhead have come to belong by reason of the union. But, if they senselessly divide it from God the Word by speaking of two natures after the union, it then walks in its own ways following its nature, and preserves its properties undiminished on the principle of the impious men. But these things are not so (how could they be? ), but indeed very different: for union rejects division, as the holy Cyril said: «For, though it is said that he hungered and thirsted, and slept and grew weary after a journey, and wept and feared, these things did not happen to him just as they do to us in accordance with compulsory ordinances of nature; but he |13 himself voluntarily permitted his flesh to walk according to the laws of nature, for he sometimes allowed it even to undergo its own passions»25. For from Cyril's words, as from a sacred anchor, I do not depart.

And the same statement is made by Gregory the Theologian26 of Nazianzus also in the sermon on baptism: «For he is purity itself, and did not need purification; but he is purified for you; just as for you he put on a garb of flesh, while he is fleshless: and he would have run no danger at all from putting off baptism; for he himself was a warden of passion to himself» 27. Accordingly then28 he was a warden to himself of hungering as well as of being tired after a journey, and of accepting the other human passions, such as do not fall under sin, in order to display the Humanization truly and without phantasy 29. Of what we have said this is the sum; that we must anathematize those who divide the one Christ: and they divide him by speaking of two natures after the union, and consequently apportioning the operations and properties between the natures. Accordingly good doctrine is contained in the30 ---- of the serene king: for it anathematizes those who divide the one Son who was |14 hypostatically united to flesh into two natures, and the operations and properties of the same two natures: for thus also says the impious Theodoret: «How does he range under impiety those who divide the properties of the natures of God who is before the ages and of the man who was assumed in the last days? » 31 I have written these things though I am poor in intellect and praise the greatness of your God-loving understanding; and because, as you are wise, I give you an opportunity to attain wiser results. Forgive me that on account of the lack of leisure caused by the present struggles I have been late in writing. Greet your honoured consort, who is a partner and a helper in the affairs of God.

The end of the first letter to Oecumenius the count.

> II. -------- OF THE SAME THE SECOND LETTER TO THE SAME OECUMENIUS THE COUNT UPON THE SAME MATTER, AND IT IS AMONG THOSE WRITTEN DURING EPISCOPACY. [513-8.]

Greet your honoured consort, who is a partner and a helper in the affairs of God. The end of the first letter to Oecumenius the count. > II. -------- OF THE SAME THE SECOND LETTER TO THE SAME OECUMENIUS THE COUNT UPON THE SAME MATTER, AND IT IS AMONG THOSE WRITTEN DURING EPISCOPACY. [513-8. ]

I wonder how it is that your God-loving magnificence has picked |15 up again from the beginning the contention that had been put to silence. While confessing Emmanuel to be of two natures, to suppose the elements of which he consists to be generalities covering many hypostases (this is what is meant by the property of a generality) is a thing that is very abominable and inept, and one that confirms the charge falsely disseminated against us by the impious: for we are found to be imagining two natures before the union according to their account; for there would be the whole of humanity and of course the Godhead also, even before the Humanization of the Word. And these matters would need further conversation by word of mouth, not written words in a letter, which are subject to considerations of brevity, and bring danger32 to the writer, wherever any unusual name or unelaborated phrase is inserted in the document. You know what words that lead to rocks you have used in your recent composition, and, though admitting that you do this as a concession, you have still done it. But to us, who by ordinance from above and mercy have attained to this priestly office, it does not bring honour to take such ill expressions in our mouth and consign them to writing: for it is written, |16 «The lips of a priest will guard knowledge, and they will ask law from his mouth»33. Wherefore Paul also, who was taken up to the third heaven, and heard ineffable words34, knowing the difficulty of words of this kind, urged the believers to make earnest and constant prayer that speech might be granted him with eloquence35. Since then these things are so, and we decline to employ a multitude of words, which as a rule do not escape sin36, I will use shortness of speech to your wisdom and knowledge, and ask you a very easy question. Do you call the flesh possessing an intelligent soul, which God the Word voluntarily united to himself hypostatically without any change, a specimen or a generality, that is one soul-possessing hypostasis, or the whole human generality? It is manifest that, if you wish to give a right-minded answer, you will say one soul-possessing body. Accordingly we say that from it and the hypostasis of God the Word the ineffable union was made: for the whole of the Godhead and the whole of humanity in general were not joined in a natural union, but special hypostases. And the holy and wise Cyril plainly witnesses to us in that in |17 the third chapter 37 or anathema he spoke thus: «Whoever divides the one Christ into hypostases after the union, associating them in association of honour or of authority only, and not rather in junction of natural union, let him be anathema» 38. And again in the Scholia the same says: «Hence we shall learn that the hypostases have remained without confusion»39. Accordingly the natural union was not of generalities, but of hypostases of which Emmanuel was composed. And do not think that hypostases in all cases have a distinct person assigned to them, so that we should be thought, like the impious Nestorius, to speak of a union of persons, and to run counter to the God-inspired words of the holy Cyril, who in the second letter to the same Nestorius speaks thus: «But that it should be so 40 will in no way help the right principle of faith, even if some men spread about a union of persons.

For the Scripture did not say that God the Word united to himself the person of a man, but that he became flesh» 41. When hypostases subsist by individual subsistence, as for instance, those of Peter and of Paul, whom the authority of the apostleship united, then there will be a union of persons and a brotherly association, not a natural junction |18 of one hypostasis made up out of two that is free from confusion. For this is what those who adhere to the foul doctrines of Nestorius are convicted of saying with regard to the divine Humanization also. They first make the babe exist by himself separately, so that a distinct person is even assigned to him, and then by attaching God the Word to him impiously introduce a union of persons into the faith. This Gregory the Theologian 42 also rejected by saying in the great letter to Cledonius: «Whoever says that the man was formed, and God afterwards crept in is condemned: for this is not a birth of God, but an escape from birth»43. But, when hypostases do not subsist in individual subsistence, as also in the case of the man among us, I mean him who is composed of soul and body, but are without confusion recognised in union and composition, being distinguished by the intellect only and displaying one hypostasis made out of two, such a union none will be so uninstructed as to call one of persons. Though the hypostasis of God the Word existed before, or rather 44 was before all ages and times, being eternally with God both the Father and the Holy Spirit, yet still the flesh possessing an intelligent soul which he united to him did not exist |19 before the union with him, nor was a distinct person assigned to it 45. And the great Athanasius bears witness, who in the letter to Jovinian the king says: «As soon as there is flesh, there is at once flesh of God the Word; and, as soon as there is soul-possessing and rational flesh46, there is at once soul-possessing rational flesh of God the Word46: for in him also it acquired subsistence»47. And the holy Cyril also testifies, addressing the impious Diodorus as follows: «My excellent man, I say that you are shooting forth unlearned words much affected with what is abhorrent. For the holy body was from Mary, but still at the very beginning of its concretion or subsistence in the womb it was made holy, as the body of Christ, and no one can see any time at which it was not his, but rather simple as you say and the same as this flesh of other men»48. Following these God-inspired words of the holy fathers, and confessing our Lord Jesus Christ to be of two natures, regard the distinct hypostases themselves of which Emmanuel was composed, and the natural junction of these, and do not go up to generalities and essences49, of the whole of the Godhead and humanity in |20 general: for it is manifest that the whole of the Godhead is seen in the Trinity, and humanity in general draws the mind to the whole human race. How therefore is it anything but ridiculous and impious for us to say that the Trinity was united in hypostasis to the race of mankind, when the holy Scriptures say more plainly than a trumpet, «The Word became flesh and dwelt in us»50, that is that one of the three hypostases who was rationally and hypostatically united to soul-possessing flesh?

But neither do we deny, as we have also written in other letters on different occasions, that we often find men designating hypostases by the name of essence51. Hence Gregory the Theologian named hypostatic union union in essence51 in the letter to Cledonius which we have just mentioned, speaking thus: «Whoever says that he worked by grace as in a prophet, but not that he was united and fashioned together with him in essence, may he be bereft of the excellent operation, or rather may he be full of the contrary»52. And the wise Cyril in the second letter to Succensus calls the manhood which was hypostatically united to God the Word essence51, saying: «For, if after saying 'one nature |21 of the Word' we had stopped and not added 'incarnate', but set the dispensation as it were outside, they would perhaps in a way have a plausible argument when they pretend to ask, 'Where is the perfection in manhood? or how was the essence after our model made up? ' But, since the perfection in manhood and the characteristic of our essence has been introduced by the fact that we said 'incarnate', let them be silent, since they have leaned upon the staff of a reed» 53. But saying that Emmanuel, is from two essences54 also, as we confess him to be from two natures, even if one understand the essences 54 as hypostases, we avoid, as a thing that is unscientific, and has not been stated in so many words by any of the God-clad fathers: for in such matters we must avoid novelty, even if it has some religiousness about it, and with the psalmist-prophet be preserved in the tent of caution, and be hidden by grace from on high, even from the contention of tongues55.

These things we have written in epistolary style, though we are in the midst of many troubles, and of many tens of thousands of kinds of cares. But it rests with your truth-loving and God-loving soul to inform us by letter if you have given up the doubts, and if what we have written appeared |22 to have been well stated, Know that the religious deacon Anatolius 56 has abandoned this opinion, and, though late, has thanked us.

> III. -------- OF THE SAME FROM THE 5th LETTER TO OECUMENIUS, WHICH BEGINS, «When I read the letter addressed to the God-loving Peter the presbyter 57». [513-8]

It is not confessing the particularity of the natures from which Emmanuel comes that we avoid, so long as we maintain the unity without confusion (the particularity is that which is expressed in natural characteristics), but distributing and dividing the properties to each of the natures 58.

> IV. -------- OF THE SAME FROM THE LETTER TO SIMUS THE SCRINIARIUS, WHICH BEGINS, «Unless I had some great affection for your illustriousness». [513-8(?).]

> IV. -------- OF THE SAME FROM THE LETTER TO SIMUS THE SCRINIARIUS, WHICH BEGINS, «Unless I had some great affection for your illustriousness». [513-8(? ). ]

[After first citing the passage of Basil which says, «'Unbegotten' is a characteristic of a form of being, not of essence 59 » 60, he speaks as |23 follows] 61. But, if we interpret the saying rightly from the clear teachings of the saints and of the other fathers, the meaning becomes plain, and there is nothing contradictory or dime alt in it: for 'being' here expresses the distinct hypostasis of the Father. For the fathers said that the Holy Trinity exists both in one essence 62, and in the being of each, that is, three hypostases, existing severally, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

> V. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS, FROM THE LETTER TO EUSEBIUS THE SCHOLASTIC, WHICH BEGINS, « Since you have raised objection against me through your letter». [513-8 (?)]

But now also we will come to what is required, and, we will again say, that 'essence' 62 signifies a generality, and 'hypostasis' a particularity, but 'being' and 'nature' introduce sometimes a general signification, sometimes a partial or particular one. This is stated on account of the varying use that is found in the holy fathers: for you knew both that 'essence'62 is sometimes employed in the particular signification of 'hypostasis ', and occasionally also |24 'hypostasis' is found employed in place of 'essence' 63. For this reason we decline to use such a signification as being unscientific.

> VI. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS, FROM THE LETTER TO MARON, OF WHICH THE BEGINNING IS, «When Naaman the Syrian». [513-8 (?).]

For this reason we decline to use such a signification as being unscientific. > VI. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS, FROM THE LETTER TO MARON, OF WHICH THE BEGINNING IS, «When Naaman the Syrian». [513-8 (? ). ]

Enough has, I think, been said about essence 63 and hypostasis. But the name 'nature' is sometimes taken in place of essence', sometimes in place of hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively 'nature', as it is indeed written: «For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to human nature»64: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name all mankind one nature, we use the name 'nature' generically in place of 'essence' 63; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name 'nature' is employed in place of 'individual hypostasis'. So |25 also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term 'nature' in place of the general designation 'essence' 65; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: «Confess the Trinity to be of one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for you from the Spirit the expression 'God'»66. But, when we say 'one incarnate nature of God the Word', as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word 67, we use 'nature' in place of 'individual designation', denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself, like that of Peter also or of Paul, or of any other single man. Wherefore also, when we say 'one nature which became incarnate', we do not say it absolutely, but by adding 'one nature of the Word himself clearly denote the one hypostasis. But the very men who blasphemously call the one Christ two natures use the name 'nature' in place of 'individual designation', saying that the Word of God is one nature, and the man as they say from Mary another. For they do not reach such a height of fatuity as to say that they are using the name 'natures' in place |26 of 'general designation', I mean in the same sense as essence 68: for, if the Holy Trinity is one nature, and all mankind one nature, in the same sense as anything which is shown to be so on this principle, the Holy Trinity will be found (to say a very absurd thing) to have become incarnate in all mankind, that is the human race.

> Of the same, from the letter to Maron, which begins, «When Naaman the Syrian».

But the Holy Scriptures instruct 69 us otherwise, teaching us that God the Word one only of the three hypostases became incarnate and humanized. For 'the Word became flesh, and dwelt in us' 70.

> Of the same, from the letter to Maron the reader, which begins, «When Naaman the Syrian».

> Of the same, from the letter to Maron, which begins, «When Naaman the Syrian». But the Holy Scriptures instruct 69 us otherwise, teaching us that God the Word one only of the three hypostases became incarnate and humanized. For 'the Word became flesh, and dwelt in us' 70. > Of the same, from the letter to Maron the reader, which begins, «When Naaman the Syrian».

But, when you hear these things, you will perhaps say that we ought not to have spoken of difference between the natures from which Emmanuel is, lest we ourselves be found to be repeating and using the same expression as these proud men. Accordingly, let us also refrain from confessing the union, |27 because they also profess to speak of a union which consists in an association of honour; and, because they speak of two natures after the union, let us also not say that the union was made from two natures, rejecting even the very mention of natures, like silly children, who tremble at terrifying alarms that are fictitious and invented, as if they were truth, and flee to their mothers' bosoms. If on account of the blasphemies contained in the opinions of those men we yield to them words and names which establish the truth, together with the sound of the words the great mystery of religion 71 goes from us. But, if we be right-minded, we shall both religiously hold to the words and cast out the foul opinions as evil speaking.

> Of the same, from the letter to Maron, which begins, «When Naaman the Syrian ».

You see that we must also confess the difference between the natures from which the one Christ is, and avoid the cutting into two, and extol one Son and Christ, and one incarnate nature of God the Word. |28

> VII. ---- OF SEVERUS, FROM THE LETTER TO MARON, WHICH BEGINS, «When some time ago I received the letter of your religiousness». [513-8 (?)]

Accordingly it is the same thing to say that God the Word was united to flesh possessing an intellectual soul in nature and in hypostasis and in essence 72.

> VIII. ---- To MARON. [513-8 (?).]

Perfection is not found in anything by nature, except in God only.

> IX. -------- OF OUR FATHER SEVERUS, FROM THE LETTER TO MARON. [513-8 (?).]

But the power of the unconfused and initial union preserved those that were united beyond the reach of disturbance, and caused the two of them to exist in one hypostasis and one person, and one incarnate nature of the Word.73 |29

> X. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS, FROM THE LETTER TO ELEUSINIUS 74, WHICH BEGINS, «As the great Moses appeared». [516-8]

Where then we confess the one out of two, Lord and Son and Christ, and one incarnate nature of the Word himself, we understand the difference as it were in the natural characteristics of the natures from which Christ is. But, if we speak of two natures after the union, which necessarily exist in singleness and separately, as if divided into a duality, but united by a conjunction of brotherhood (if we ought to call such a thing unity), the notion of difference reaches to the extent of division, and does not stop at natural characteristics.

> Of the holy Severus, from the letter to Eleusinius the bishop, which begins, «As the great Moses appeared».

But, since it is a habit of the enemies of the truth to hurl accusations at |30 us of things which are the opposite of their evil opinions, and to charge us with holding some mixture or blending or confusion or phantasy in the divine and ineffable Humanization, after common deliberation we have decided to make clear by a limitation and distinction what was stated by you without limitation. You say of the mystery of Christ that you do not recognise the difference of the natures, nor yet their individuality, since with 'difference' you understand also 'division'. Hence also you clearly laid down the following by way of a canon: «When therefore we seek to separate and distinguish rational nature from irrational, and suprasensual from perceptible, and created from uncreated, together with the difference between these things we also make a separation and division». These statements have been made by you as well and wisely as possible, that, where there is rational and irrational, or perceptible and suprasensual, or created arid uncreated, each of them remains by itself, and appears in its own hypostasis, that is, has an individual and separate and distinct existence; for here with difference is understood also division, and again from the difference of the qualities which naturally belong to each singly we recognise |31 division. When therefore out of things that differ in kind and are not of one essence 75 with one another, the suprasensual I mean and the perceptible, a combination or natural union takes place in order to make up one animal, as we see in the case of a man, the division into two ceases, for of this the notion of unity does not admit, but the difference and individuality as it were in the natural characteristics of the elements which have come together into one is preserved, since the body has not refused to be body, nor has the soul passed into the nature of the body. The same thing, and something higher, is understood with regard to Emmanuel also.76

> XI. -------- OF THE SAME FROM THE LETTER TO ELEUSINIUS THE BISHOP, WHICH BEGINS, «In wrestling-contests». [516-8.]

The same thing, and something higher, is understood with regard to Emmanuel also. 76

> XI. -------- OF THE SAME FROM THE LETTER TO ELEUSINIUS THE BISHOP, WHICH BEGINS, «In wrestling-contests». [516-8. ]

But, since you have thought fit to ask me what is the difference that appears in natural characteristics, I mean of the natures from which Emmanuel is, I will explain clearly and not conceal. (And a little farther on.) For |32 Cyril the truly holy and wise after writing in the letter to Acacius, «Godhead and manhood are not the same thing in respect of natural characteristics» 77, in the second volume 78 against the blasphemies of Nestorius writes as follows, as if explaining the meaning of the expression: «For between Godhead and manhood I also allow that there is great distinction and distance: for the things which have been named are clearly different, and in no point like one another» 79. This then is the difference that appears in natural characteristics, the different principle underlying the existence of Godhead and manhood 80: for the one is without beginning and uncreated, and bodiless, and intangible, while the other is created, and subject to beginning, and temporary and tangible, as being flesh and solid. This difference we in no wise assert to have been removed by the union.

> Of the same from the letter to Eleusinius which begins, «In wrestling-contests».

It was sufficient to banish this unseemly supposition, that 'difference |33 in characteristics' was not stated absolutely, but the word 'natural' was added, which declares the fact that it is only by the intellect and by subtle investigation that we can know of what kind each of the natures is which have combined in the unity and made up one hypostasis and manifestly declare that Emmanuel is one out of two opposite things, Godhead I mean and manhood, as Gregory the Theologian 81 said, «Let distinctness be maintained in the unity»82.

> Of the same from another 83 letter to the same Eleusinius, which begins, «In wrestling-contests».

How then, after these things have been written by me, is it not plain to everyone from the words used by the wise Cyril that division also is then understood to accompany difference, when the separate natures or hypostases exist individually, not when one person and one incarnate nature or hypostasis of God the Word is made up by coalescence from two? That the holy Cyril says that separation or division is then joined with difference |34 when the natures exist apart and by themselves is testified by the addition made to the words cited above from the prosphonetikon oration.

> Of the same from the letter to Eleusinius, which begins, «In wrestling-contests».

That the holy Cyril says that separation or division is then joined with difference |34 when the natures exist apart and by themselves is testified by the addition made to the words cited above from the prosphonetikon oration. > Of the same from the letter to Eleusinius, which begins, «In wrestling-contests».

And do not tell me that the holy Cyril alone used the expression in this sense; but observe with sound intelligence that he does not step outside the apostolic faith; for Gregory the Theologian also spoke words that are in accord with him in the passage which we have just cited above. And, if none of the God-clad fathers before him in fact spoke in so many words of unity in hypostasis with reference to the Incarnation of God the Word, yet still all the lovers of the right faith accepted it, inasmuch as it sets forth the splendour of the mystery of the divine Humanization, and it agrees with the opinion of the doctors of the church. Therefore also that wretched and impious Theodoret speaks thus in the objection to the 2nd anathema: «Unity in hypostasis we do not recognise at all, as being strange and alien to the divine Scriptures, and to the doctors who expounded these» 84. |35

> XII. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS, FROM THE LETTER TO ELEUSINIUS. [513-8.]

But perhaps someone will say that, when the wise Basil said, «Grace arising from the dispensation» 85, he referred to the coming in the flesh. But let us know clearly that the Word of God, even before he rose upon us in fleshly form, constantly controlled 86 our life and our salvation; for 'in him we live and move and exist'87: for the name 'dispensation' is not applied to the grace of the Humanization among us only. And Gregory the Theologian 88 is a witness of this when he says, «The other appellations etc.» 85.

> XIII. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS FROM THE LETTER TO ESTORECHIUS (?) 89 BISHOP OF ANAZARBA, ABOUT THE DISPUTATION THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE ROYAL CITY, FROM THOSE BEFORE EPISCOPACY, WHEN HE WAS SPEAKING AGAINST MACEDONIUS BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE. [508-11.]

But know that the great Basil did not call Christ a God-clad man (far |36 be it!), but called Christ's flesh God-clad flesh. But the same immediately afterwards termed the same flesh Christ-clad 90. But if the expression 'God-clad' and 'Christ-clad' is the same, the conclusion is that Christ the Word who became incarnate and was humanized for our sakes is true God, not a God-clad man.

> XIV. -------- OF THE SAME FROM THE SOLUTION OR DEFENCE IN ANSWER TO THE 15th QUESTION OF THOSE THAT WERE SENT TO HIM BY THOMAS HIS SYNCELLUS 91. [513-8.]

But if the expression 'God-clad' and 'Christ-clad' is the same, the conclusion is that Christ the Word who became incarnate and was humanized for our sakes is true God, not a God-clad man. > XIV. -------- OF THE SAME FROM THE SOLUTION OR DEFENCE IN ANSWER TO THE 15th QUESTION OF THOSE THAT WERE SENT TO HIM BY THOMAS HIS SYNCELLUS 91. [513-8. ]

We therefore judge that which was desired by those who assembled at Chalcedon against the truth, to banish the confession that Christ is to be recognised as from two natures, and to introduce instead the confession that he is to be recognised as in two natures, as the company of Nestorius desire, to be abominable and also impious, and we will never propound the same teaching (?) as those who, in order to open the gates to the doctrines of Nestorius, .....92 so we also require the opposite, that the one be openly proclaimed, and the other completely suppressed and banished in accordance |37 with the laws of the holy church. For let the means of remedy be introduced by the same similar drugs as those by which it was desired to produce the sickness; and let us not neglect things that are so manifest, and go about and pick out, or search as among reeds, and seek if anywhere in the writings of the holy fathers of the orthodox 93 we occasionally find 'difference' or 'in two' or 'from two' indiscriminately and incautiously stated. Indeed in the 11th book of the interpretative narrative of the Gospel of John the holy Cyril used the expression 'in two' of the separate hypostases as follows: «Everywhere and under all circumstances there will follow and coincide with the knowledge concerning the offspring the knowledge also concerning him who begot him; as indeed the converse also is true. But, if the statement is true and is unhesitatingly received, that the Father is understood together with and enters together with the Son, and the Son also with the Father, and the knowledge of each of them runs in the two, how can the Son be a creature, as. some impious men say?» 94; even as no one says that the name and fact of division and union are the same, as they themselves indeed suppressed the one and stated the other. |38

> XV. ---- OF THE SAME, FROM THE LETTER TO THOMAS HIS SYNCELLUS, IN WHICH HE SHOWS THAT IT IS THE SAME THING TO SPEAK OF THE UNION IN CHRIST AS FROM TWO NATURES AND FROM TWO HYPOSTASES. [513-8.]

For those hypostases or natures, being in composition without diminution, and not existing separately and in individual existence, make up one person of one Lord and Christ and Son, and one incarnate nature and hypostasis of the Word.

> From the same letter after a citation 95 from Cyril.

From what has been stated the doctor teaches that the peculiarity of the natural union is that the hypostases are in composition and are perfect without diminution, but refuse to continue an individual existence so as to be numbered as two, and to have its own person impressed upon each of them, which a conjunction in honour cannot possibly do. |39

> From the same letter after a quotation from Cyril.

It is plain therefore that the natures or hypostases, if they are not combined in one in hypostatic union without confusion, do not make up one Christ and Son and Lord, and one incarnate nature of the Word and one person.

> XVI. ---- OF SEVERUS FROM THE LETTER TO THOMAS THE SYNCELLUS. [513-8.]

Since therefore these things have thus been made clear, it has already been recognised that it is alien to those who confess a hypostatic union to call the hypostases, that is the natures which in an ineffable manner coalesced in one, from which Emmanuel is, persons, and therefore to think and say that the union is from two persons. To say this belongs to those who confess a falsely-named union, who make the man and God exist apart in individual existence, and devise for themselves a conjunction founded upon authority and identity of name. |40

> XVII. ---- TO THOMAS THE PRESBYTER.

For the true fast is a life pure from every evil act, and that we should break bread for those who are hungry.

> XVIII. -------- OF THE SAME FROM THE LETTER TO THE MONKS AT TUFA, WHICH BEGINS, «When I read the letter of your love of God». [513-8(?).]

For we must confess the one our Lord Jesus Christ, out of two natures the Godhead and the manhood, to be one and the same invariably and unconfusedly God and man, since not being again divided aftert he union; for duality is a dissolver of unity, although it is obscured by countless devices. For he who has been united is fixedly one, and does not become again two. For Christ is not divided, but is one person, one hypostasis, one incarnate nature of God the Word. |41

> XIX. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS, FROM THE LETTER TO ISIDORE, THE BEGINNING OF WHICH IS, «I rejoiced greatly when I received the letter of [your] Christ-loving illustriousness». [508-11 (?)]

The doctors called the Holy Trinity co-essential, that through this word, composed in so polished and very sublime a way, they might express both the fact of the oneness of essence1 and that of the division of hypostases, by the same expression both union and division, in one word. For, when the Son is said to be co-essential with the Father and the Holy Spirit, he claims to share in essence 96 with those who are recounted, but to differs in hypostasis.97

> sXX. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS, FROM THE LETTER TO ISIDORE THE COUNT.

On this point we find that the accurate doctors celebrate the Trinity in 508-11 (?). one essence 96 which is the Godhead, but consequentially confess that this consists of three hypostases. |42

> XXI. -------- OF THE SAME, FROM THE LETTER TO ISIDORE THE COUNT, WHICH BEGINS, « From the letter of your religious and learning-loving magnificence». [508-11(?).]

---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS, FROM THE LETTER TO ISIDORE THE COUNT. On this point we find that the accurate doctors celebrate the Trinity in 508-11 (? ). one essence 96 which is the Godhead, but consequentially confess that this consists of three hypostases. |42

> XXI. -------- OF THE SAME, FROM THE LETTER TO ISIDORE THE COUNT, WHICH BEGINS, « From the letter of your religious and learning-loving magnificence». [508-11(? ). ]

But may the Lord of the seeds, who by coming in the flesh shone upon us, and came to cast good seed upon the earth, the one of the Holy Trinity, who together with the Father and the Holy Spirit is theologically defined98 and glorified (for in these things Godhead consists to us, or rather 99 these things are Godhead) multiply in you many times the seed of religion, especially because you are inflamed with watchfulness, burning with divine zeal, against the seed of heretical tares.

> XXII. -------- THE TEACHER OF THE TRUTH SAID THEREFORE IN THE LETTER TO JOHN AND JOHN PRESBYTERS AND ARCHIMANDRITES 100 AND THE REST, THE |43 BEGINNING OF WHICH is, «After I had written in answer to the previous communication of your holinesses as follows». [519-20.]

But I hear that the Romans say, «We are afraid to call him who suffered for us in the flesh one of the Trinity, lest we subject the Holy Trinity to numeration». But this is full of utter ignorance and impiety, and is a pretext of men who seize pretexts for sins, or of those who know not what they say and about what they affirm 101, as Paul the apostle somewhere says about certain persons. The Holy Trinity is capable of numeration in respect of hypostases; but, in that it is one and of the same essence 102, it stands outside number.

(And again a little lower down.) Accordingly therefore the Romans, who are very wise, are infected with profound error, not knowing that in essence 102 the Trinity is incapable either of numeration or of division, but in respect of hypostases it is both divided and separated, in order that distinctness may be maintained in the individual likenesses of the Father and |44 the Son and the Holy Spirit. But at those who resemble the Romans both in impiety and in ignorance, the Jebusites 103, I am greatly surprised, since they have in clumsy fashion and by a new and very crass expression named the Holy Trinity a Trinity of hypostases' 104. A word compounded in this way I have never till this day heard; for it leads us to understand that three glorified hypostases do not exist apart, but one that takes three forms and changes now into the hypostasis of the Father, now into that of the Son, now into the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, and that it is one, but changes person 105 as in a theatre 106, and speaks or acts now as from the person 105 of the Father, now as from the person 105 of the Son, now as from the person 105 of the Holy Spirit, as the witless Sabellius the Libyan was pleased to hold.

> XXIII. ---- AGAIN OF THE SAME, FROM THE LETTER TO THE PRESBYTERS AND ARCHIMANDRITES, JONATHAN AND SAMUEL AND JOHN, WHO WERE STANDING |45 ON PILLARS, AND ALL THE REST OF THE ORTHODOX 107 WHO ASSEMBLED IN THE CHURCH OF THE CITY OF AN BAR, AND IN THE CHURCH OF HIRTHA DNU'MAN. [519-38 (?).]

For he said, «Go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit» 108; so that there is aHoly Trinity, divided and distinct in hypostases, but not divided in one essence 109 and Godhead, and kingship and glory and eternity and the other attributes which God has by nature. For the Father has one thing hypostatically, fatherhood, and the fact that he is unbegotten; and the Son again has one thing hypostatically, sonship, and the fact that he was begotten by the Father; and the Holy Spirit again has one thing, the fact that he was not begotten, but proceeds eternally without beginning from the Father: for in virtue of these things distinctness of person belongs to each one of them, that is, is marked out and defined for the hypostases, but all the other attributes are, as I have said, common, equal in honour and undivided, and such as show that we for our part have believed in one God, and in one |46 essence 109, and he exists and is made known in three hypostases. For the Son was begotten by the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, although eternally and without time, and their ascent is to him, as to a root and source, and from him they are, though they are not after him. And for this reason, while we confess three hypostases, we do not believe in three first causes, but one first cause, and one kingship. After pursuing the matter so far we praise only and do not investigate what the unbegottenness of the Father is, or what the generation of the Son is, or what the procession of the Holy Spirit is; for these things are known only by the Father who begot and the Son who was begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father: but he requires us to know 'through these things that we are to confess one essence 110 and Godhead, made known in three distinct hypostases.

> XXIV. ---- OF THE HOLY MAR SEVERUS, FROM THE LETTER WHICH HE WROTE TO JOHN THE CHRIST-LOVING ROMAN 111, SHOWING WHAT IS SIGNIFIED BY A PERSON BEING DIPPED THREE TIMES, AND WHY CHRIST CAME TO BAPTISM WHEN HE WAS 30 YEARS OLD; AND HE SHOWS FURTHER WHAT IS THE NATURE |47 OF THE CONFIRMATION BY OINTMENT 112 WITH WHICH THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED ARE CONFIRMED AFTER BAPTISM.

For the same baptism is both performed in the name of the Holy Trinity, and by the triple dipping it is further signified that the man who is baptized is buried with Christ.

> Of the same to John the Roman on the fact that holy baptism is performed in the name of the Trinity, and by the person being immersed three times within the water it is signified that he is buried with Christ, and why Christ came came to baptism when he was 30 years old.

For that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit should be named on the occasion of baptism ......... For how [can] they who have not participated in flesh nor been humanized ......... the only Son and Word who was begotten by the Father? For there are indeed many rites that are performed, and ......... look to the same origin. |48 But each ........., so that even the understandings are confused. Of this I ..... in one of my treatises which I wrote . . . about interpretations. There after examining the question why the Lord came to baptism when he was 30 years of age in the flesh I said at one time that it was in order to show that the new birth begets men full-grown in reasonable age, for so also the first man was created full-grown, and immediately as full-grown received a commandment and a law, and was given permission to till and keep Paradise, and the words which follow113; and at another that by means of three periods comprised in three decads which make 30 years he signified the mystery that was revealed on the Jordan, that one Godhead is made known in three complete hypostases, by which holy baptism in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit was to be performed. That these things introduce no confusion Gregory the Theologian in the sermon on the Passover states as follows: «The Lord's passion2, the passion2, and again I say the passion114, in honour of the Holy Trinity»115; though I know that no other |49 undertook the saving passion on our behalf in the flesh except God the Word, who became incarnate for our race. For the whole of the saving Humanization has this effect, that the mystery of the Holy Trinity is revealed to us, although you speak of the birth in flesh, or of the Gross or of the burial, or of the Resurrection from among the dead, dividing the Humanization into many elements. For indeed in each of these we confess that we know the Trinity, in that we indicate upon our faces that the sign of the revered Cross is a dissolver of every evil influence; and, when therefore we sign ourselves, we sign three times, and we show that it is through the Gross that we have obtained knowledge in the Trinity. And this sign is a thing which makes known and completes all things that are done among Christians; and it is everywhere adopted, at the performance of baptism, at the consecration of water, at the celebration of the rational, spiritual sacrifice, and at the symbolic and ineffable ordinations to the priesthood of those who are duly appointed to the sacred ministry, though in all these things we do not call upon one of the hypostases only, that is God the Word who |50 was humanized, but on the three together, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, indicating that it is by the power of the Cross that we have partaken of all these things and have obtained knowledge in them116.

> XXV. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS, THE LETTER THAT WAS WRITTEN BY HIM TO THE EMESENES. [512-8.]

To the devout presbyters and orthodox117 deacons, and to the rest who compose the holy order 118 of the clergy 119, and to the magnificent and Christ-loving magistrates of the city, and to all the people of the holy church, Severus greeting in our Lord.

> XXV. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS, THE LETTER THAT WAS WRITTEN BY HIM TO THE EMESENES. [512-8. ]

To those who are not wise in their mind or are otherwise without intelligence, and are lacking in true instruction, the holy Scripture gives the proper rule and place, in order that their emptiness of mind and lack of instruction may be turned to wisdom: for indeed it commands those who are such both to learn and to ask, or to be silent altogether; for the holy book |51 of Proverbs somewhere said: «To the fool who asketh wisdom shall be reckoned: but, when a man maketh himself silent, he is thought to be wise» 120. But the man who keeps this rule it raises and advances, and incites to learn things that are of use and profit, and it says, «Give thine heart to wisdom, and prepare thine ears for words of understanding» 121. I am surprised therefore that the brother whom you mention (out of tenderness for his soul I do not mention his name) did not know his own measure, and, besides not knowing originally the subject on which he was talking, neglected this legally established and salutary rule; and, when he ought to have bent a ear of understanding to those who are wiser than he is, he on the contrary threatened to take the ignorance that is in him to the city of Alexandria, like an invincible warrior, who is able to overcome and take captive all that meet him, and sell them where he likes. Therefore I have both accepted your wisdom in the Lord, which is worthy of the church and very honourable, and your patience, which is such as befits Christians, and have crowned them also with a decree of many praises, since in accordance with the apostolic model you both received and admonished him as your member and brother 122, and brought forward the teachings of the holy fathers. And, |52 whereas you once and twice secretly and openly refuted and corrected him on the points on which he spoke without knowledge, and he was again involved in the same errors, and you behaved like doctors and churchmen, and on all sides seek to gain his salvation, and by actual deeds show that you look to the apostolic commandment which commands, «Let everything be done decently and in order»123, but he, though he was thought worthy to receive so much attention, had no mercy on his soul, and did not restrain himself so as to show moderation and humility, I expressed blame and at the same time showed mercy and still show mercy, since ignorance is free from danger124, for a man is not blamed because he does not know. He is trying to bring upon himself the sin that does not deserve forgiveness, in that he does not yield to those who are wise among the brethren, or seek from wiser men a cure for his ignorance by desire to learn, but pettily searches into things that are unknown and uncertain, and does his best to find men to share his opinions, in order that he may seem to be saying something when he is saying nothing that is sound.

But the other things which he said without |53 knowledge he has with difficulty come to honour by silence, in that he assented to the passages from the holy fathers (that were brought before him; and he was reduced to one passage, the words used by the holy Cyril in the second volume 125 against the blasphemies of Nestorius, which are as follows: (( For, because the Word who is from God the Father took flesh and came forth as a man like us, he would not for this reason be also termed a double thing. For he is one, and not without flesh, who in his own nature is without flesh and blood» 126. After you had quoted to him the 127 words used by the doctor, he persisted and said 128 that after his own Resurrection 129 we must confess that God the Word is without flesh 130, inasmuch as he put off that which was without variation and without 131 separation hypostatically united to him, a thing that is beyond all impiety and profanity, so that |54 everyone who has natural (I will not say, spiritual) intelligence must wonder if a fact which is so universally admitted has ever been made a subject of contention, and has 132 passed the lips of anyone who has duly believed in our one Lord and God and Saviour 133 Jesus Christ. If he were skilled in divine doctrine, he should have (to omit everything else) considered the anathemas of Gregory the Theologian, who in the great letter to Cledonius which begins, 'I wonder what this innovation is', clearly lays down these principles in it, «If anyone says that the flesh 134 was now laid down by him, and the Godhead is stripped of a body, and does not confess that he both is and will come with the thing assumed itself, may he not see the glory of his coming. For where is the body now except with him who assumed it? For it has not been laid up in the sun, as the silly tale of the Manichees goes, in order that he may be honoured through the object of contempt, or diffused and dissolved in the air, like the nature of a voice and the wafting of a smell, and the course of lightning that does not stand still. But what becomes of the fact that he was actually touched after the Resurrection, or that he will again some time |55 be seen by those who pierced him? For the Godhead by itself is invisible. But he will come with the body, according to my account, and such as he was seen by, or was shown to, the disciples on the mount, inasmuch as the Godhead easily overcomes the flesh» 135. Who. that reads these words resplendent with truth, and flashing with the rays of the Holy Spirit, will dare to say that the Word of God, who was humanized immutably and without any phantasy 136, is without flesh after the inexplicable and incomprehensible union? Accordingly it is clear that you also have not gone beyond what is fitting in opposing the precipitous error of that man and saying in order to remove him from this error, «The words used by the doctor about the Word of God, In his own nature he is without flesh and blood', refer to the time before the Humanization».

Indeed, since he himself said that 'he is one, and not without flesh', how can it be anything but wholly unreasonable, and presumptuous and irreverent, for us to gainsay this, and contend that he is without |56 flesh? But the words which he went on to add, 'who in his own nature is without flesh and blood', plainly introduce this thought, that in his own nature, that is in the Godhead, he has no association with flesh and blood. He did not take the flesh into the fulness of his own divine nature and mix it with it, nor did he mingle it with his own Godhead, but that in the dispensatory assumption we might understand him to be not without flesh, Emmanuel being wonderfully composed and consisting of two elements, the Godhead and the manhood: but even so he preserved the absence, of mixture in the divine essence1, and did not change the essence137 of the Godhead into the nature of flesh. And that this is so I bring as a witness to the accuracy of his doctrines the doctor himself, who by the operation of the Holy Spirit is an accurate doctor. In the first letter to Succensus, when certain men had advanced a similar objection, he expressed himself thus: «Since I found in |57 the memorial an assertion of this kind stated, that since the Resurrection the holy body of Christ the Saviour of us all has passed into the nature of the Godhead, so as to be all Godhead only, I thought it right to speak against this also». And thereupon, after he has above in a brief compass gone through all the statement of the dispensation of the Humanization, he brings against it this argument: «It is impossible for a body taken from earth to endure the change into the divine nature. And, if not, we bring against the Godhead the charge that it is as a thing that is made and as a thing that has taken into it something that is not its by nature» 138. See! how plainly he denies that the divinity of the Word has taken anything into its essence 139 which is not its by nature, though we confess that flesh possessing an intelligent soul was taken by God the Word, and he united this to him hypostatically, but not so that anything should be added to his divine essence2, as if it were deficient (for he is truly complete in everything), but that from the unmixed union of the Incarnation, and the composition out of two elements, the Godhead |58 and the manhood, Emmanuel should be made up, who in one hypostasis is ineffably composite; not simple, but composite: as the soul of a man like us, which by nature is bodiless and rational, which is naturally intertwined with the body, remains in its suprasensual and bodiless nature, but by reason of the composition with the body makes up one composite animal, man. Accordingly the assumption of the body makes no addition to the essence 140 of the soul, but makes up the composite animal, as it is reasonable to understand with regard to the theory 141 of Emmanuel also.

The Word did not take the flesh intelligently possessed of a soul in order to complete his being God, as we have said, but that one hypostasis might be wonderfully and immutably made up out of two elements, the Godhead we mean and the manhood, and the one incarnate nature of the Word himself, and one person: for the Word of God, according to the saying of Paul the apostle, partook of blood and flesh after our pattern 142. And that this is so the approved Cyril further shows in the letter to Valerian bishop of Iconium; who wrote as follows: «For God and man did not come together, as they say, and make up |59 one Christ; but, as I have already said, the Word, being God, partook of blood and flesh like us, in order that he may be known to be God who was humanized, and who took our flesh, and made this his, because, as the man who was composed of soul and body is known to be one, so also now 143 he is acknowledged to be one Son and Lord. For one nature and hypostasis of a man is acknowledged, though he is known to be made of diverse and heterogeneous elements: for the body is truly different in nature from the soul; but it belongs to it, and with it makes up the hypostasis of the one man. And in mental conception and in theory the difference of the things that have been named is not obscure, but by combination and concurrence that cannot be cut asunder one animal, man, is made up. The Word therefore, the Only one of God, did not come forth as man by taking a man, but, though his birth from the Father is ineffable, he became man by forming a man 144 for himself through the Holy Spirit which is of one essence with him. Accordingly he is known to be one, though in the theory which is according to reason his own body is different in nature from himself. Let it therefore be everywhere acknowledged that he was not without soul, but that he was possessed of an intelligent soul» 145. Similarly also in the second volume 146 |60 against the blasphemies of Nestorius he clearly teaches that the assumption of flesh did not pass into the Godhead of the Word, but that the Word of God remained in his own nature, and apart from flesh, but by the immutable combination with flesh it was wisely and beyond all reason and understanding brought about that one Christ should be marvellously made up; for he speaks thus: «Accordingly confess one, not dividing the natures, while you know and understand that to flesh belongs one principle, and to Godhead that which befits it only. For we do not say that the flesh of the Word became Godhead, but rather that it is divine as being his. For, as the flesh of a man is called his, on what ground is it not right for us also to call that of the Word divine? » And again farther on: «If therefore he were a wise and intelligent man at all, he should say that the body is from a woman, but confess besides that by being combined in hypostatic union with the Word it has made up one Christ and one Son, and one Lord, who being the same is God and man» 147.

The expressions therefore that are used by this genuine and very accurate father, 'for he is one, and not without flesh', and, 'he who in his own nature is apart from flesh and blood', demonstrate |61 this, as is plain from what we have demonstrated, that in the dispensatory conjunction he is not without flesh: for he is one composed of two elements, the Godhead and the manhood, which have a perfect existence in their own sphere; but in his own nature he is known to be apart from flesh and blood, and without a body; not that he mingled flesh with the nature or with the essence 148 of the Godhead, but that he kept the Godhead sublime and pure and unmixed, in the characteristics of its own incorporeal character, as also he did not change the manhood which was hypostatically united to him, but kept it free and without change in its own characteristics. Wherefore also one may see that Nestorius and those who like Jews hold his opinions wish to reject the absence of change of the hypostatic union, and to put confusion into the minds of the believers, while they are everywhere making this charge, that we confess that the body was changed into the divine essence1, and thereby hold one incarnate nature of God the Word, and they say that they themselves only, the wretched, unhappy men, keep the Godhead of the holy Trinity unmixed and pure, by confessing that the man from Mary, as they themselves say, in loving mercy was conjoined to |62 God the Word and shares with him in sonship and divine authority, and by this self-created scruple 149 they make the Trinity a quaternity. And for this reason the wise Cyril shows Nestorius also, who was their leader in this fatuity, speaking thus: «Therefore God the Word is named Christ also, because he has the eternal conjunction with Christ, and God the Word cannot do anything without the manhood: for he knows the coalescence exactly 150, not with the Godhead, as the new wise men amoug the doctors say» 151. And the same man of small intellect weaves the same charge, and in the treatise entitled 'Against the Theopaschites or Cyrillians', which he composed in the form of question and answer, speaks thus:

«The Theopaschite says: 'And how can we be accused of the composition of the Diphysites, we who call Christ one incarnate nature of God?'

The orthodox 152 says: 'Your own refutation, which you think is a defence, itself refutes. For you have confessed that one nature is prepared for Christ, from incorporeality and a body, and a hypostasis with one nature |63 of the incarnation of the Godhead. But this is the confusion of those who have two natures, that the natures themselves are deprived of the hypostases which they severally possess, that are confounded with one another'» 153.

And again farther on in the same treatise:

«The Theopaschite says: 'What do you think of an eggshell (?) of water that has been poured into the sea?' The orthodox 154 says: 'What else except that the unstable addition of the water has disappeared in the great volume of the sea?'

The Theopaschite says: 'Something similar happened also to the flesh: for do not think that the Godhead is smaller than the sea in relation to the flesh as compared with the shifting character of the eggshell'.

The orthodox2 says: 'By «shifting character» do you mean a kind of instability, or the change of that which was swallowed up into that which swallowed it up?'

The Theopaschite says: 'The change of the essence 155 of the body into the Godhead'.

The orthodox2 says: 'The nature of the body remaining, or being dissolved into non-existence?' |64

The Theopaschite says: 'The flesh passing into the nature of the Godhead instead of the essence 156 of flesh'»157.

The Theopaschite says: 'The change of the essence 155 of the body into the Godhead'. The orthodox2 says: 'The nature of the body remaining, or being dissolved into non-existence? ' |64

The Theopaschite says: 'The flesh passing into the nature of the Godhead instead of the essence 156 of flesh'»157.

While very vainly putting together such reasons against the right confession of the Humanization, as I said before, reasons which contend against God, and saying that a man should be worshipped with the Trinity, Nestorius and those who think with him state of themselves that they preserve the unity of nature of the three hypostases unmixed, in that they do not confess that God the Word was hypostatically united to flesh possessing an intelligent soul, and call the union that is so far above nature and immutable and wonderful mingling. Wherefore also Dorotheus, who became bishop of Marcianopolis 158, and belonged to the same Jewish company and party, presented a petition to Marcian's own self at the very beginning of his reign, and found fault with the position 159 held by the bishops, and the sound opinion of the holy churches; and he speaks thus: «Therefore, merciful kings, in consideration of their so ridiculous, that is lamentable, opinions, renew the firm maintenance of the connaturality while it is possible, while there is time, by recalling Nestorius from exile 160, and join together the people of Christ who are divided, lest, |65 as I pray may not happen, the past be repeated» 161. The holy Cyril therefore, having exposed such old people's fables and Jewish tales 162 in every part of his writings, in the first letter to Succensus also, which I mentioned above, said thus: «But it is impossible for a body taken from earth to endure the change into the divine nature; for it cannot be done. And, if not, we speak of the Godhead as a thing that is made, and as a thing that has taken into it something that is not its by nature. For on the score of impropriety it is equal for us to say that the body was changed into the nature of Godhead, and also the other thing too that the Word was changed into the nature of flesh. For, as this is impossible (for he is invariable and immutable), so also is the other. For it is not among possibilities that any created thing can pass into the essence or nature of Godhead. But the body too is a created thing. Accordingly we say that Christ's body is divine, because it is also God's body, and resplendent with ineffable glory, incorruptible, holy, life-giving: but, that it was changed into the nature |66 of Godhead, none of the holy fathers has either thought or said, nor do we ourselves so hold» 163. This fact therefore according to the expression of the doctor, that the body of the Word is resplendent with ineffable glory, incorruptible and holy and life-giving, Gregory the Theologian also in the demonstration contained in the letter to Gledonius demonstrated by saying that the Godhead overcame the incarnation 164. Accordingly the flesh remained flesh, even after the God-befitting Resurrection and Ascension, but adorned with divine and ineffable glory, and with all the excellencies that befit God; and it is divine as something that is the body of God, and it was not changed into the essence 165 of the Godhead. It is in this meaning that the expression of the doctor with which we are now concerned also should rightly be understood that God the Word is one and not without flesh: for he is incarnate by hypostatic union in flesh possessing an intelligent soul (but in his own nature he is without flesh and blood), that is, without mixture |67 with what he possesses in his essence 166 and nature, that is the bodiless and immutable and incomprehensible Godhead.

As for what you say at the end that the man who easily follows illusions (? ) 167 and shifts his ground widely said on the advice of certain persons, that we must think of the Word of God in the infinity of his divine essence 166 without flesh, is very foolish and senseless. Even though the Word of God is infinite, the whole of him was united to the flesh that was received from the holy Virgin, the God-bearer and ever-virgin Mary, even the very person of the Word and not a partial operation as in the prophets. How then is it anything but ridiculous for us to say that he who was in the actual divine hypostasis wholly united to a body naturally as well as miraculously is without flesh, even in the greatness of his infinite Godhead168? For 'there is no limit to his greatness' 169, as David said, and he fills everything, and is above everything, and cannot be comprised by anyone. And the subtlety of |68 the mystery cannot be explored by reason and intellect, how the whole of him was in flesh, and the whole of him is in all things and the whole of him is superior to all things and he himself is Ruler of all in infinity. But, that we believe that the very hypostasis of God the Word became incarnate, according to the apostolic tradition of the church that has been handed down from of old, it is superfluous for us to demonstrate by testimonies to those who have once believed in the Gospel, when John who was divine in words beyond the evangelists said, «The Word became flesh and came to dwell in us» 170. How ever, since there is a doubt about it, and in order that we may close the doors against all contention, on this point too let the words of the father himself, I mean the holy Cyril, come to our assistance, who in the defence of the second chapter 171 addressed to Theodoret the deceiver wrote thus: «Since Nestorius therefore everywhere eliminates the birth in flesh, and introduces among us a union of authority only, and says that a man was conjoined to God, who is honoured by identity of name of sonship, in contending against his propositions we were compelled to say that the hypostatic union took place, in which expression |69 the word 'hypostatic' denotes nothing else except this only, that the nature itself or his hypostasis, which is the Word himself, after it has been united to human nature without variation and confusion, as we have often said, is recognised as one Christ [and] is so, the same God and man» 172. After the same fashion in the Scholia also he comes forward with the same words as follows: «'For in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily', that is not by assumption simply 173, like light that shines, or fire that imparts its heat [to] the objects near it, but, if we may so say, that the divine and incontaminable nature itself by a true union as I have said made the temple from the Virgin a dwelling-place for that which he is recognised to be. For thus Christ Jesus is recognised to be one» 174. But, that the whole of him was in a body, and was hypostatically united to it, him of whom all things were divinely full, he himself confirms by his own words.