To the devout presbyters and orthodox deacons, and to the rest who compose the holy order of the clergy , 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.
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» . 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» . 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 , 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» , 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 danger , 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 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» . After you had quoted to him the words used by the doctor, he persisted and said that after his own Resurrection we must confess that God the Word is without flesh , inasmuch as he put off that which was without variation and without 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 passed the lips of anyone who has duly believed in our one Lord and God and Saviour 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 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» . 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 , 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 essence, and did not change the essence 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» . See! how plainly he denies that the divinity of the Word has taken anything into its essence 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 essence, 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 of the soul, but makes up the composite animal, as it is reasonable to understand with regard to the theory 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 . 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 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 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» . Similarly also in the second volume |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» . 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 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 essence, 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 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 , not with the Godhead, as the new wise men amoug the doctors say» . 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 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'» .
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 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 orthodox 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 of the body into the Godhead'.
The orthodox 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 of flesh'» .
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 , 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 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 , and join together the people of Christ who are divided, lest, |65 as I pray may not happen, the past be repeated» . The holy Cyril therefore, having exposed such old people's fables and Jewish tales 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» . 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 . 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 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 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 (?) 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 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 Godhead ? For 'there is no limit to his greatness' , 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» . 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 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» . 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 , 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» . 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. For it is written in the Gospel of John also that he said to Nicodemus, «No man hath gone up to heaven, except him who came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven» ; though he did not come down from heaven in that he became man, for he did not bring the flesh down from |70 heaven, but he received it from the holy Virgin, flesh that is of our race, and of our nature. Nor again, when he was speaking to Nicodemus, was he corporeally in heaven; but incorporeally, in that he is God, heaven and earth and what is above heaven were perpetually full of him. And in the eighth section of the second of the books against Julian the great in demon-worship, which were written by him in defence of the Christian religion, the doctor shows how the Word of God, while he is all in all, was hypostatic ally united to the flesh derived from the holy Mary, and, beyond every creature, filled all things by reception from him (in a suprasensual sense nothing is empty of him), though the infinity of his greatness surpasses and soars above all things that exist with a great space between (how great it is impossible to say): by whom according to the words of Isaiah «all the nations have been reckoned as a drop from a pot, and as the sand of a balance» . But the holy Cyril again speaks thus: «He has become, as I said, in the likeness of men, as it is written, and in our human appearance truly. Nevertheless we did not say that he who cannot be comprised was |71 confined, nor that he was inclosed in the limits of the body. For it is utterly silly and complete folly to say anything of the kind of him who is by nature and in truth God. For, while he is one and the only Son, and completely above all human phantasy, the whole of him is in virtue of a gift in every man, and in each [one] by presence, not being divided nor cleft asunder, but [above] everything by nature, and in everything as God. 'But in that all-pure and holy body 'all the fulness of the Godhead bodily has come to dwell', as it is written. And he was as in his own flesh, but still even so he filled all things from him» . And in the treatise addressed to the queens the opening words of which are, Those who administer the divine and heavenly preaching', he explains the meaning of the statement that the Word of God and all the fulness of the Godhead came to dwell in flesh as written by Paul in this way: «But we believe that the Word became flesh, not by way of removal or change, but rather that he came to dwell in us, and, to speak correctly, made the body that was in truth united |72 to him, possessing an intelligent soul, his own temple. And the divine Paul, declaring the indwelling of the Word in the holy flesh, or the true union, said that in him all the fulness of the Godhead came to dwell, not so much by way of assumption or presence, or by way of a gift of grace, but bodily, that is in essence; as in the case of a man also it is said [that] his spirit dwells in him, though it is not something different from him» . How then shall we say [that] he who is wholly in everything by way of gift, and in each man in presence (for he receives all things from him and they depend upon his presence), and who further also is in everything and is nowhere cleft asunder or divided, and further is wholly in the all-holy flesh in essence, and so is united to it, after the fashion in which the soul of a man like us is united to its own body, how shall we say that he is without his own flesh, because he filled all these things with the gift of himself, he who is infinite, and is wholly in everything? But to inquire into such a marvellous subject is a piece of utter foolishness: for glorious things are sealed by faith only. In the other treatise addressed to the religious virgin queens, Arcadia and Marina, which begins, 'The world's boast', the same wise Cyril |73 inserted a demonstration from the holy John who became bishop of Constantinople, who spoke about the God-bearer Mary, and about the birth of God the Word, as follows: «'And instead of a sun she contained without confining the Sun of righteousness. And do not ask how: for, where God wills, the order of nature is defeated. For he willed, he was able, he came down, and he saved. All things run into one for God. To-day he who is is born, and he who is became that which he was not. For, being God, he became man, not by departing from being God; for he did not became man by departure from Godhead, nor did he become God by growth from man: but, being the Word, he became flesh on account of suffering , while he remained invariable in his nature'. And he adds to these things: 'He who sits upon a lofty and high throne is laid in a manger. He who is intangible and simple and bodiless is grasped by human hands. He who cuts asunder the bonds of sin is wrapped in swaddling-clothes'» . And the saintly Proclus who became bishop of the same city in the exposition which he delivered in the church of Anthimus on the feast of the Resurrection spoke to the same effect as follows: «The heaven |74 cries, 'He who became man, who was crucified in flesh, is God: for as God he caused me to incline and came down'. The sun also cries, 'He who was crucified in flesh is my Lord: for I in fear of the light of the Godhead held-back my rays'. The earth also cries, 'He who clothed himself in a body, who was crucified in flesh, is the Maker: for, though I embraced his flesh in a manger, yet I did not confine the might of his Godhead'» . It would have been possible to add other things also which are like these and resemble them, but it is superfluous to add to what has been so wisely said, and make the discussion inordinately long. But I pray your holy assembly and lawful church to be of the same mind, as the apostle said , and conform to the same rule , and, if any disputed point arises, not make this a cause of strife and division, and of useless contentions, but lovingly join with one another in the inquiry. But, if any of you has anything to say, let him speak with humble mind, as the words of God, as Peter the 'chosen apostle gave admonition . If anything also needs further explanation, you must not act hastily, nor be in a hurry, but await the proper time, and bring it before the saintly bishops, and accept the healing that they shall apply. As for |75 the brother who gave occasion for this dispute, since we have written these few words, receive him lovingly, and strengthen him, and acknowledge him as your member. And, whether he is one man, or many who were associated with him in this dispute or ignorance, act in the same way towards them: for concerning those who are such the apostle commands us and says, at one time, «Him that is weak in the faith bring near to you» , and at another, «And reckon them not as enemies, but admonish them as brothers» . It is not because they made inquiries, or because they were ignorant that they are blameworthy; on the contrary they would actually have been praised, if they had discussed the point with humility, and not with haste and confusion, and with a desire to add to ignorance; for this is what prevented them from being received in regard to the discussion which they raised. However, now that we have written so much, let love vanquish everything, and let not these distressing matters come even into remembrance: for 'love' also, as it is written, 'covers a multitude of sins' ; which love may the God of love and the lawgiver Christ also strengthen in you. |76
The signature. May you be made perfect in the Lord, being sound, and living in the Spirit, and remembering me, our religious and Christ-loving brothers.
The end.
XXVI. ---- OF THE SAME, FROM THE LETTER TO JOHN AND JOHN AND THEODORE THE ARCHIMANDRITES. [519-38.]
For the Godhead exists before the worlds and eternally in three hypostases.
XXVII. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS FROM THE LETTER TO JOHN AND THEODORE AND JOHN THE GOD-LOVING PRESBYTERS AND ARCHIMANDRITES, AGAINST THE CODICILS OF THE ALEXANDRINE. [519-38.]
Alexander is manifestly found to say that [man] is in the form of angels, in that he contends that the holy bodies become spiritual bodies, denying the resurrection of the flesh and bones; if 'a spirit [hath] not flesh and bones' , |77 according to the unerring saying of the Lord. Accordingly it manifestly appears that he preaches contrary to the prophets and apostles and holy doctors of the church, who in revealing fashion taught the words of faith and expounded the God-inspired Scriptures, and outside what we receive, according to the apostle's ordinance ; and he is under anathema, even if we keep silence.
Of the holy Severus patriarch of Antioch from the letter to John and Theodore and John, the God-loving presbyters and archimandrites, which was written in answer to the Codicils of the Alexandrine.
For we may hear wise men outside also saying, «Not to sin at all, and to do everything rightly is of God» . And we see the divine Scripture also saying of each created thing, «Let there be light, and there was light; and God saw the light that it was good»; and again, «Let there be so-and-so and there was; and God saw that it was good»; and after everything together so to speak which he called forth and which answered, «God saw |78 all that he had made and lo! it was very good» . How then can anyone say that things which are good both in themselves severally, and because they fit together with one another and make up one world, are a sin on God's part? If so be they are a sin, they are not good: but, if they are good, they are not a sin. But, if by reason that they are corruptible, therefore they are a sin, yet rather, as a certain wise man says, «God created everything that it might come into being, and salutary are the creations of the world, and there is no poison of corruption in them; and Sheol hath no kingdom upon earth» . Again, if the first man had kept the commandment, and not gone astray after sin through the serpent's deceitfulness, and lost the grace of immortality, having voluntarily drawn death upon himself, then creation itself also would have continued, acquiring for its own self the grace of immortality from God: for in accordance with the condition in which we are for whose sake it came into being its parts also pass away. For this reason then, when man himself was condemned to death, it itself also served corruption and 'was made subject to vanity' , as the apostle says; but it hopes further to gain with us what it had from |79 the beginning: and it will have continuance without corruptibility when we are admitted to the resurrection and the kingdom of heaven: for the most wise Paul himself also cries, «Creation itself also shall be freed from the bondage of corruption, into the freedom of the glory of the children of Gods» .
( And after other things ).
But, my good friend, neither indeed did God make the world in order that it might be corrupted, for 'salutary are the creations of the world', as you have heard; but, since it is of a very fluid nature, he on the contrary brought it into being in order that it might partake of incorruption; for indeed 'even creation itself shall be freed from the bondage of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God'. For what logic is it, tell me, that rational man who sinned of his own accord should according to your argument be raised to incorruption, while creation which is inanimate and without perception, which for his sake was made subject to vanity, should be delivered to final destruction, and not partake of the incorruptibility and the glory of those for whose sake it was made |80 subject to corruption? For that the world shall be consummated is manifest according to the faith in the divine Scriptures: for that the rudiments which compose this visible creation will not pass into absolute non-existence, but will be changed into something better, Paul testifies when he says, «The form of the world passeth away» , and not 'this world', and Peter also testifies when he writes, «The heavens shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the elements shall burn and collapse» . (But those in whom righteousness dwells look for new heavens and a new earth according to his promises.) And before him David sings about the heavens the passage also, «They all shall grow old as a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed» . Words agreeing with these were written by the Theologian Gregory also, in the sermon on the funeral of his brother Caesarius, as follows: «But why am I faint-hearted about the hopes? Why do I become a man of time? I await the voice of the archangel, the last trump, the transformation of heaven, the changing of the earth, the emancipation of the elements, the renovation of the whole world. Then shall I see Caesarius, no longer departing, no longer carried, no longer |81 being mourned for, no longer being pitied, bright, glorious, exalted, even as you have often appeared to me in a dream, O most brother-loving , and most brother-loving; either as I have wished to depict thee, or in reality» . And the most wise John, the expounder of the divine words, in the commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews speaks as follows: «And besides this he demonstrated another thing also worth attention in parabolic form: for he also denoted the transformation of the world by saying, 'As a garment shall they grow old; and as a vesture thou shalt fold them up, and they shall be changed'; a thing which he also states in the epistle to the Romans, that he shall transform the world: and setting forth the easiness he added that, as a man may fold up a vesture, so shall he fold them up . and change them. But, if he effected the transformation and the creation into something better and higher so easily, for the creation of something worse he needed another; how long will, you not be ashamed?» . And in the commentary on the epistle to the Romans he gives an account of this matter in very complete form, writing as follows : «'For the expectation of creation', he says, 'looks for the revelation of the sons of God. |82 For creation was made subject to vanity, not of its own accord, but because of him who subjected it in hope'. For what he says is something like this. 'This same creation suffers great pain expecting and hoping for the good things which we have just mentioned. But expectation is earnest looking'. But, in order that the account may be clearer, he also personifies the whole of this world, as the prophets too do, when they introduce rivers clapping hands, and high places leaping, and the mountains dancing; not that we may understand these to be animate, nor that we may assign any reason to them; but that we may learn the abundance of the good things, so that it reaches even to things without perception. And they often do this same thing in the case of distressing things also, introducing a vine lamenting and wine and mountains, and the roofs of the temple crying, that from this again we may understand the greatness of the evil things. But, imitating these, the apostle personifies creation and says that it groans and suffers pain; not because he had heard any groan come from earth and sky; but that he may show the abundance of the future good things, and the desire of escape from the prevailing evil things. 'For creation was |83 made subject to vanity, not of its own accord, but because of him who subjected it'. What is 'Creation was made subject to vanity'? It was made corruptible. Why and wherefore? On account of you the man. For, since you received a body that is mortal and passible, the earth also received a curse, and produced briars and thorns. But, that heaven together with the earth will grow old and eventually pass to the better ending, hear the prophet saying, 'In the beginning, Lord, thou laidst the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thine hands. They shall perish, but thou endurest; and they all shall grow old as a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed'. And Isaiah, demonstrating these things, said, 'Observe heaven above and the earth beneath; because heaven hath been solidified as smoke, and the earth shall grow old as a garment; and they that dwell therein shall perish like them'. You have seen how 'creation was made subject to vanity', how also it shall be freed from corruption; for the former said 'As a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed', and Isaiah said 'They that dwell therein shall perish like them', not speaking of utter destruction, for neither shall the men who dwell in it undergo such as this, but the temporary destruction, and through that very thing they shall pass to |84 incorruption, just indeed as by saying 'like these things' he pointed to creation itself, that is the universe , just indeed as Paul also says farther on. However for the present he is speaking about its subjection and showing why it was made of this kind, and assigning us as the reason. What then? Was violence done to it in that it underwent these things for another? Not at all; for it was indeed made for me. How then is a thing which was made for me injured when it undergoes these things for my reformation? But, to look at it in another way, we ought not even to raise the question of justice and injustice with respect to things without life and perception. But Paul because he personified it uses none of the arguments that I have stated, but by another method of reasoning sets himself superfluously to comfort the hearer. But what was it? 'What say you? It underwent evil things for you and has become corruptible. But it lost nothing; for it shall also become incorruptible again through you': for this is the meaning of 'in hope'. But, when he says, 'It was not made subject of its own will', he does not say this to show that it is possessed of thought, but that you may learn that |85 everything was brought about by the will of Christ, and the one is not a reformation of the other. But he stated also in what hope. 'Because creation itself also shall be freed'. What is 'itself also'? That not you, but it also, even a thing that is far inferior to you, and that does not partake of reason and perception, this also shall partake with you in the good things. For it 'shall be delivered', he says, 'from the bondage of corruption'; that is, it shall be no longer corruptible; but it shall follow the beauty of your body. For, as, when it became corruptible, creation also became the same, so, when it is rendered incorruptible, creation also as well shall again follow; to denote which indeed he added, 'into the freedom of the glory of the children of God '» .
But, inasmuch as the Alexandrine is a stranger and a barbarian to the divine Scripture, and is not accustomed to the teachings of this Scripture, he thinks that God is a creator of corruption, and he calls the world his sin; a thing that is of fluid nature, but is honoured by the grace of incorruptibility together with man for whose sake also it was made. It was not as a sin of God that Christ reformed the world's subjection also that was for man's sake, that he might bring in one set of |86 things in place of another, as this wicked and deceiving man says; in place of bodies that had been delivered to death the immortality of spirits, and in place of the corruption of the world eternal incorruptibility, and in place of abundance of sins abundance of right acts; but in order that he might raise man, who had fallen, and by erring been stripped of the grace of God through which he had immortality, to the original state, through the resurrection of the bodies into incorruption, by which this world also shall partake of the freedom and the glory, as we have written.
( And after other things .)