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. |29
X. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS, FROM THE LETTER TO ELEUSINIUS , 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 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.
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» , in the second volume 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» . This then is the difference that appears in natural characteristics, the different principle underlying the existence of Godhead and manhood : 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 said, «Let distinctness be maintained in the unity» .
Of the same from another 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».
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 2 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» . |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» , 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 our life and our salvation; for 'in him we live and move and exist' : for the name 'dispensation' is not applied to the grace of the Humanization among us only. And Gregory the Theologian is a witness of this when he says, «The other appellations etc.» .
XIII. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS FROM THE LETTER TO ESTORECHIUS (?) 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 . 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 15 QUESTION OF THOSE THAT WERE SENT TO HIM BY THOMAS HIS SYNCELLUS . [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, ..... 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 we occasionally find 'difference' or 'in two' or 'from two' indiscriminately and incautiously stated. Indeed in the 11 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?» ; 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 from Cyril.