Letters of Severus
Letters of Severus
Severus of Antioch
c. AD 465–538
These are letters of Severus, translated from the Syriac by E. W. Brooks, to bishops, officials, monks and nuns during his years as patriarch of Antioch and in exile. Most of them deal with the person of Christ and with the Council of Chalcedon. The letters keep the numbers that they have in the collection, and a number of them are given only in part.
Introduction by the Translator
The letters of the great Monophysite patriarch Severus, who held the see of Antioch from 512 to 518 and died in exile in Egypt in 538, like the rest of his works, and indeed nearly all Greek Monophysite literature, have been lost in the original, except in so far as a large number of citations are preserved in catenae and a few in Acts of Councils; and of Syriac versions only one exists in a continuous form, the collection of 123 letters entitled «The Sixth Book of Select Letters (έκλογαί)», translated by Athanasius of Nisibis, which I edited with an English translation for the Text and Translation Society in 1902-4. Of the existence of other Syriac versions, either of all the letters or of selections, we have no direct evidence; but it may be inferred from the fact that citations in MSS. of different contents often agree verbally, and that, where the letter in question is included in the Athanasian collection, the text in the other MSS. differs from that of Athanasius. On the other hand the existence of different versions of particular passages (in one part of ep. 99 of the present edition there are four) does not prove the existence of different continuous translations, since the compilers of the catenae or other documents in which the citations are found may have translated the passages for themselves, and in many cases the citations are found in translations of Greek works such as those of Peter the patriarch and those against Probus and Paul of Beth Ukhame , where the translator naturally rendered them from the original.
The object of the present edition is to collect the letters and fragments of letters outside the Athanasian collection which are found scattered in various MSS; but, in order to keep the edition within reasonable limits, I have excluded the great dogmatic letters «To Sergius the grammarian», «Against John the grammarian», and «Against Julian of Halicarnassus,» which rather require separate publication, as well as letters already published in the work of the so-called Zacharias Rhetor, and other versions of letters contained in the Athanasian collection. The heavy task of collecting the Greek fragments also seemed to lie outside the scope of the present work, and I have contented myself with referring to published extracts from letters to the same addressees as those of the present collection. Coptic and Arabic versions are also excluded. The total number of manuscripts used is 28, of which 20 are in the British Museum, 6 in the Vatican, one at Paris, and one at Berlin. Of the Berlin extract M. Kugener kindly lent me a photograph which he had obtained for another purpose; for the Paris extract and most of the Vatican extracts I have, as usual, to thank the indefatigable photographic labours of M Graffin; of some of the Vatican extracts I have copies which I took in 1901; and for the few which remain I am indebted to the kindness of M. Tisserant, who verified the references and had the required photographs taken for me. - A list of MSS. is given after the Introduction; but for a full description of each I must refer to the catalogues of Wright, Assemani, Zotenberg, and Sachau, only noting that I seems to be a copy of V and is only useful where the photographs of V are defective or indistinct or the accuracy of my copy doubtful, and that, as part of F is identical with part of L (Wright p. 1007), and apparently a copy of it, I have not thought it necessary to collate this portion except where L is defective or illegible. Where more than one version of a passage exists, I have given the text of all, but in the translation I have tried to reproduce the original from the different versions, placing such variants as seemed worth preserving in the notes. Of the usual varieties of spelling in such words as [Syriac] I have taken no account in the apparatus, and I have in such cases generally placed the shorter spelling in the text, whatever the MS. reading may be. Words or letters inserted to fill illegible or defective places in the MSS. are enclosed in square brackets in the text and words depending on such supplements in the translation.
The letters in the original Greek existed in a collection divided into 23 books, of which 4 contained those written before episcopacy, 10 those written during episcopacy, and 9 those written after exile, and there were also some letters described as 'outside the 23 books' (S. L., iv, 7, 10). Of these the books which contain those written during episcopacy seem from the numerals of the letters preserved to have been much longer than the other books. In the Select Letters the place of each letter in the original collection is stated; but among the scattered letters contained in the present edition it is only in 26 cases that any such information is given, and there is still nothing to show on what principle the letters were arranged. That the order is not chronological I showed in the Introduction to the translation of the Select Letters (p. x). As however a list of the contents of the original collection, so far as they can be ascertained, may be useful for easy reference, I subjoin a catalogue of letters in the order of that collection with the names of the addressees and references to the Select Letters or to the present edition, the former being distinguished by the letters S. L.
Before episcopacy : i, 7 About the Anthropomorphists Theognostus A woman S.L., x, 2 ii, 10 Phocas and Eupraxius Constantine of Seleucia S.L., i, 1 Antoninus of Berrhcea iii, 5 The patricians S.L., ii, 1 Conon silentiarius ---- x, 4 Alypius ---- x, 1 iv, 2 John the tribune ---- v, 1 Theodore the monk ---- x, 5 ---- ---- notary ---- x, 3 Solon of Seleucia ---- i, 2 Jannia the archimandritess ---- vii, 2 Without number of book or letter : Oecumenius comes Entrechius of Anazarba During episcopacy : i, 10 Peter, Ammonius, and Olympiodorus Ammonius the Alexandrine S.L.,iv, 2 i, 115 Dioscorus of Alexandria S.L., iv, 3 Eleusinius of Sasima ---- vi, 1 Archelaus the reader ---- vi, 2 Zacharias of Pelusium ---- iv, 1 ii, 4 Dionysius of Tarsus ---- iv, 4 Cosmas of the monastery of Cyrus ---- iv, 5 Solon of Seleucia do S.L., i, 3
do ---- i, 4 Conon silentiarius iii, 5 Peter of Apamea S.L., i, 5 Valeriana the archimandritess ---- vii, 1 Simeon of the great monastery ---- vii, 3 Nicias of Laodicea ---- i, 6 Castor of Perga ---- i, 7 Timostratus dux ---- i, 8 Nicias of Laodicea ---- v, 2 Archimandrite of monastery of Bassus ---- i, 11 Cosmas, Polyeuctus, and Zeno ---- i, 12 John comes ---- iv, 6 Entrechius of Anazarba ---- i, 13 iv, 64 The fathers ---- i, 42 Antoninus of Berrhoea ---- i, 14 do ---- i, 15 Misael the chamberlain ---- xi, 1 Antoninus of Berrhoea ---- i, 16 Misael the chamberlain ---- i, 17 Entrechius of Anazarba ---- i, 18 Solon of Seleucia ---- i, 19 Victor of Philadelphia ---- vii, 5 Suffragans of Apamea ---- i, 20 The magister officiorum ---- i, 21 The fathers ---- i, 22 Monks of Tagais
---- v, 3 Solon of Seleucia ---- i, 23 Theotecnus archiater ---- i, 24 Dionysius of Tarsus ---- i, 25 Solon of Seleucia ---- i, 26 v, 66 Philoxenus of Doliche ---- i, 28 Musonius and Alexander ---- i 27 Monastery of Isaac ---- i, 29 Clergy of Apamea ---- i, 30 Bishops of Phoenice ---- i, 31 vi, 1 The fathers ---- IX, 1 John of Alexandria Minor ---- i, 32 Theotecnus archiater ---- v, 4 Dionysius of Tarsus ---- v, 5 do ---- i, 33 vii, 42, 51 Solon of Seleucia S.L. , i, 41 Stephen of Apamea ---- vii, 6 do ---- i, 34 Eustace the presbyter ---- i, 35 Eusebius the deacon ---- i, 36 Simeon of Chalcis ---- i, 37 do ---- i, 38 Clergy of Apamea ---- i, 39 Monastery of Bassus ---- x, 6 Cassian of Bostra ---- viii, 2 Aurelius scholasticus ---- viii, 3
Stephen the reader ---- viii, 1 Anastasius comes ---- iii, 1 Hypatius mag militum ---- i, 40 viii, 20 Monastery of Isaac Archim of monastery of Simeon S.L. , i, 43 Wife of Calliopius ---- vii, 7 Eutychian, governor of Apamea ---- i, 44 Conon < ΣΙΖΕ͂̈̓́̈̄λῃστοδιώκτης ---- i, 45 Clergy of Antaradus ---- i, 46 Stephen of Tripolis ---- i, 9 Cassian of Bostra ---- i, 47 ix, 1 Against Re-anointers ---- v, 6 Archelaus the reader Theodore of Olbe S.L., ix, 2 x, 61 Dionysius of Tarsus ---- v, 7 Philoxenus of Hierapolis ---- i, 48 Nunna of Seleucia ---- vii, 4 Without number of book : 142, 143 Eucherius of Paltus ---- i, 10 Without number of book or letter : Oecumenius comes After exile : i, 6 John and John S.L., ii, 2 Scholasticus John and John S.L., i, 50 do ---- i, 49 Anastasia the deaconess
Believers at Antioch S.L., iv, 8 Orthodox at Antioch ---- v, 8 Sergius comes archiater Simeon, archim. of Teleda S.L., v, 9 Monastery of Isaac ---- v, 10 Philip the presbyter ---- i, 51 John and John ---- i, 52 Bishops at Alexandria ---- i, 53 John and John ---- v, 11 do ---- v, 12 Orthodox at Emesa ---- ii, 3 iii, 32 Theodore of monastery of Romanus S.L., i, 55 Proclus and Eusebonas ---- v, 13 Proclus of Colonia ---- i 56 Caesaria hypatissa ---- x, 7 Didymus the bishop ---- i, 57 Thecla comitissa ---- ix, 3 Caesaria hypatissa Thecla comitissa S.L., i, 58 iv, 5 Caesaria hypatissa John, Philoxenus, and John S.L., v, 14 Caesaria hypatissa Sergius of Cyrrhus Sergius and Marion S.L., v, 15 v, 1 Anastasia the deaconess Constantine of Laodicea Georgia S.L., x, 8 Eustace the monk ---- vii, 8 John of Bostra
---- viii, 4 Julian of monastery of Bassus ---- i, 59 vi, 3 Caesaria hypatissa Probus mag militum Sergius comes archiater vii, 15 Photius and Andrew 59; S.L., i,60 Ammonius and Epagathus S.L., iii, 2 Misael the deacon ---- iii, 3 viii, 54 Caesaria hypatissa ---- iii, 4 ix, 13 Isidora ---- vii, 9 Thomas of Germanicea Misael the deacon S.L., i, 63 Andrew the reader ---- viii, 5 do iv, 9 Outside the 23 books : John Canopites S.L., iv, 7 Caesaria hypatissa ---- iv, 10 Without number of book or series : Leontius the presbyter If we take the highest number in each book and in the extra letters and add them up, we shall find that the smallest number of letters that the collection can have con tained is 3824. There are indeed 19 cases in which the same letter occurred twice, and in the whole collection there were no doubt many more; but, as it is very unlikely that the last letter in each book has been preserved, we may be sure that the whole number of letters did not fall short of that given above. The letters according to the subjects with which they deal fall naturally into three classes : 1) theological, 2) ecclesiastical, 3) epexegetical : of which only the second class are preserved in the Select Letters, while the present collection comprises letters and fragments of all three. In fixing the order of the letters therefore it has been my object to arrange them according to these three classes, and in each class to place letters dealing with one subject together. This system however it was impossible to carry out completely, since (1) it often happens that one letter deals not merely with different subjects but with subjects of different classes; (2) there are some letters which it is difficult to assign definitely to one class more than another; (3) some letters which should from their subject have been included in the present fascicule were not known to me till it had gone to press. The division is therefore only a rough one;
and I have not separated the letters into classes, but numbered them continuously. Of whole letters the number contained in the present edition is 7 or 8 only, the first two to Oecumenius (1, 2), that to the Emesenes (25), that to Elisha the presbyter, which is attached to the work against John the Grammarian (34), that to the monks of the East, which is attached to the correspondence with Julian of Halicarnassus (35), that to the convents of virgins (61), the first to Anastasia the deaconess (69), and perhaps that to the presbyters at Alexandria (39), which, though described as an exbract, appears to be a whole letter : but the Answers to the Questions of Eupraxius (65) must be nearly complete, and there are many long extracts, especially in the epexegetical portion, which exhaust the subject with which they deal. As the distinction between whole letters and fragments is therefore of no practical importance, I have made no separation between them, but arranged them all indiscriminately according to the subject matter. It has been my object to include all accessible letters and fragments of letters of Severus existing in Syriac with the exceptions mentioned above; but, as these are distributed over a vast number of MSS., of which some are imperfectly catalogued, there are no doubt many which have escaped me. The document contained in Brit. Mus.
Add. 14668 f. 44 v° which Wright (p. 788) calls a letter is however a prayer, and the letter in Y p. 117 (Assemani's notation) addressed to the patriarch Peter the younger, which Assemani (III, p. 63) with strange chronological confusion ascribes to Severus, is a letter of Damian. Wherever possible, I have placed a date in the margin of the translation of each letter; but the cases in which the date can be fixed within narrow limits are few. In an appendix I have added a short collection of hymns composed for use at the commemoration of Severus. ABBREVIATIONS. A. v. Alia versio. C. B. M. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac MSS. in the British Museum. P. G. Patrologia Graeca. P. L. ---- Latina. P. O. ---- Orientalis. R. O. C. Revue de l'Orient chrétien. S. L. Select Letters of Severus, ed. Brooks. S. V.N. C. Mai, Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio. MANUSCRIPTS A = Brit. Mus. Add. 14601 (9 cent.). B = ---- ---- ---- 12157 (7 or 8 cent.). C = ---- ---- ---- 17149 (6 cent.). D = ---- ---- ---- 14531 (7 or 8 cent.). E = ---- ---- ---- 17214 (7 cent.). F = ---- ---- ---- 14538 (10 cent.). G = ---- ---- ---- 12155 (8 cent.). H = I = J = ---- ---- ---- 12168 (8 or 9 cent.). K = ---- ---- ---- 17191 (9 or 10 cent.). L = ---- ---- ---- 14532 (8 cent.). M = ---- ---- ---- 14533 (8 or 9 cent.).
N = ---- ---- ---- 14613 (9 or 10 cent.). O = ---- ---- ---- 17134 (end of 7 cent.). p = Par. Syr. 62 (9 cent.). Q = Brit. Mus. Add. 12154 (circ. 800). R = Vat. Syr. 140 (6 or 7 cent.). ρ = ---- ---- 255 (6 or 7 cent.). S = Berlin Sachau 321 (8 cent.). T = Brit. Mus. Add. 14612 (6 or 7 cent.)- U = V = Vat. Syr. 103 (841). W = ---- ---- 100 (9 or 10 cent.). X = ---- ---- 107 (7 cent.). Y = ---- ---- 108 (7 cent.). Z = Brit. Mus. Add. 7191 (7 -cent.). ζ = ---- ---- ---- 7192 (7 cent.). FOR THE APPENDIX. Brit. Mus. Add. 14504 (9 cent.).
Letter 1: To Oecumenius
AD 508–512
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 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 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 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 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 danger 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
Letter 2: To Oecumenius the Count
AD 513–518
I wonder how it is that your God-loving magnificence has picked 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, «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 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 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 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 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 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 to have been well stated, Know that the religious deacon Anatolius 56 has abandoned this opinion, and, though late, has thanked us.
Letter 3: To Oecumenius
AD 513–518
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.
Letter 4: To Simus the Scriniarius
AD 513–518 (?)
[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 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.
Letter 5: To Eusebius the Scholastic
AD 513–518 (?)
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 'hypostasis' is found employed in place of 'essence' 63. For this reason we decline to use such a signification as being unscientific.
Letter 6: To Maron
AD 513–518 (?)
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 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 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». 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, 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.
Letter 7: To Maron
AD 513–518 (?)
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.
Letter 8: To Maron
AD 513–518 (?)
Perfection is not found in anything by nature, except in God only.
Letter 9: To Maron
AD 513–518 (?)
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.
Letter 10: To Eleusinius
AD 516–518
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 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 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
Letter 11: To Eleusinius the Bishop
AD 516–518
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 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 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 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» 84.
Letter 12: To Eleusinius
AD 513–518
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.
Letter 13: To Estorechius (?)
AD 508–511
But know that the great Basil did not call Christ a God-clad man (far 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.
Letter 14
AD 513–518
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 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 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?»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.
Letter 15: To Thomas his Syncellus
AD 513–518
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. 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.
Letter 16: To Thomas the Syncellus
AD 513–518
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.
Letter 17: 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.
Letter 18: To Monks at Tufa
AD 513–518 (?)
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.
Letter 19: To Isidore
AD 508–511 (?)
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 essence 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.
Letter 21: To Isidore the Count
AD 508–511 (?)
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.
Letter 22: To John and John Presbyters and Archimandrites
AD 519–520
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 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.
Letter 23: To Presbyters and Archimandrites
AD 519–538 (?)
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 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 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. 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 passion, the passion, and again I say the passion114, in honour of the Holy Trinity»115;
though I know that no other 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 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.