Severian
of Gabala on the Filioque
Severian of Gabala’s Sermon on the Epiphany, or, to give it its full
title, In magna die luminum, Jerosolymis prolata. De fide, deque generatione
Filii ex Patre, was delivered, in Greek, in the city of Jerusalem on the
6th of January, probably in either the year 390 or the year 396 (that is, at
least, Martin Jugie’s reckoning, based on the fact that, in those years,
January 6th fell on a Sunday). The original Greek text is lost; an Armenian
translation is extant, dating from the fifth century; it was edited and
published, with a Latin translation, by Jean-Baptiste Aucher in the volume Severiani
sive Seberiani Gabalorum episcopi Emesensis homiliæ nunc primum editæ ex
antiqua versione armena in latinum sermonem translatæ (Venice 1837) (as Roger Pearse recently
reported, this book is now available on Google Books).
Below is given a passage from this sermon; the Latin text is cited from pp.
196-197 of Martin Jugie’s “Sévérien de Gabala et le Symbole Athanasien,” Échos
d’Orient 14 (1911), 193-204; Jugie, in turn, reproduces the passage from
Aucher, op. cit., pp. 13-17; the English translation is my own.
In his article, written just under a century ago, Jugie
maintains that the passage from Severian’s sermon translated below shows
numerous parallels with the Quicumque vult, that is, the “Athanasian
Creed” (specifically, with its first, trinitarian section), too many parallels,
in his view, to be merely accidental. To show this, Jugie sets phrases from the
sermon and the Athanasian creed in parallel columns. He notes that this sermon
is probably the libellum de Epiphaniæ solemnitate of which Gennadius of
Marseilles speaks in his Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, c. xxi
(PL 18, 1075), and speculates that it was brought to southern Gaul by John
Cassian after his departure from Constantinople at the time of St. John
Chrysostom’s exile. Jugie, it should be stressed, does not think that
Severian composed the “Athanasian Creed”; he does, however, think that this and
other sermons of Severian’s provided a template for the kind of language one
finds in the Quicumque vult — language which accentuates the equality
and unity of the persons through a rhetorical accumulation of parallel clauses.
He discusses various fifth-century Latin writers as possible authors of the Quicumque
vult, including Gennadius of Marseilles, Faustus of Riez, and Marius Mercator, without
settling conclusively on any one of them.
Finally, I should note that Jugie sees the absolute,
legally-binding language of the Quicumque vult — “Whosoever will be
saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith;
which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he
shall perish everlastingly” — as rare among credal statements; one does not,
for instance, encounter such language in the Nicene Creed itself, which begins
simply “I believe” or “We believe.” There is, however, something of a parallel
to such language in the late-fourth century Creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia, a
creed that was in use among the Nestorians at the time of the Council of
Ephesus. This leads Jugie to speculate that the Quicumque vult may have
been originally intended as an antidote to Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Creed. That
creed, it should be noted, laid particular stress on the idea that Holy Spirit
was from the Father alone; the Quicumque vult lays equal stress on the
idea that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son. Since the popularity
of the Quicumque vult in the West was without doubt one of the main
causes for the eventual introduction of the word Filioque into the
Western text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, it is worth investigating
what causes led to the Quicumque vult’s composition; if Jugie is right,
one of those causes is to be seen in the writings of a Greek-speaking Syrian
bishop named Severian of Gabala.
Erat Pater ingenitus, et Filius
genitus, Ens ab illo Ente substantiali, vita e vita. Sicut, ait, Pater
habet vitam in seipso, ita et Filio dedit habere vitam. Non quasi prius
genuerit, et postmodum dederit ei vitam, sed Vivens viventem vitam genuit, et
Creator creatorem, judicemque. Non enim improprie velut adscitiam habet
Patris virtutem, sed ex natura æqualis ei fuit, juxta illud quod in Evangelio
exponitur, quod: Omne quod Patris fuit, illud meum est. — Et: Ego
et Pater meus unum sumus. — Et: Qui vidit me vidit Patrem.
|
The Father is unbegotten, the Son
is begotten, Being from that essential Being, Life from Life. For he says,
“As the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life”
(Jn 5:26). Not as though he first begot him, and afterwards gave him life;
but, as the Living One, he begot him, the Life, as Living, and, as Creator, he
begot him as Creator and Judge. For [the Son] has the Father’s power, not
improperly, as though it were a thing externally acquired, but he is equal to
him by nature, according to that which is expressed in the Gospel, that “All
that the Father has is mine” (Jn 16:15). And “I and the Father are one” (Jn
10:30). And “he who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9).
|
Omnia quæcumque Patris sunt, eadem
et Filii, nisi solum quod non est Pater; et omne quicquid Filius est, idem et
Pater, nisi solummodo quod non est Filius, nec carnem sumpsit; atque omne
quidquid Pater est et Filius, idem et Spiritus sanctus, præter quod non est
Pater et Filius, neque homo factus est, sicut Filius. Vivit Pater: Vivo
ego, inquit, Dominus virtutum. Vivit et Filius: Ego sum,
ait, vita et lux et veritas. Vivit et Spiritus sanctus: Caro nihil
juvat, sed Spiritus est qui vivificat.
|
All things whatsoever are the
Father’s, the same things are the Son’s, excepting only that he is not a
Father; and whatsoever thing the Son is, the same is the Father, excepting
only that he is not a Son, nor has taken on flesh; again, whatsoever thing
are the Father and the Son, the same is the Holy Spirit, aside from the fact
that he is not a Father nor a Son, nor has he, like the Son, become man. The
Father lives: for, “I live,” he says, “the Lord of hosts” (cf. Jer 46:18;
Zeph 2:9). The Son also lives: “I am,” he says, “the life, and the light, and
the truth” (Jn 14:6 and 1:9). The Holy Spirit also lives: “The flesh profits
nothing; it is the Spirit that gives life” (Jn 6:63).
|
Unus est etiam Dominus, et unus
Deus, et unus Rex; non Dominos, nec Deos, neque Reges profitemur sanctam
Trinitatem, secundum quod Seraphim clamabant in templo: Sanctus, Sanctus,
Sanctus; ter Sanctus et semel Dominus. Siquidem unus est Dominatus Patris
et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Unus Dominus et Deus, Pater; non est enim alius
Deus Pater. Et unus Dominus et Deus, Filius; non est enim alius Filius. Et
unus Dominus et Deus, Spiritus sanctus; non est enim alius Spiritus Deus,
nisi Dei Spiritus. Unus est Deus Pater, ex quo omnia. Unus Dominus Jesus
Christus, per quem omnia; et unus Spiritus sanctissimus, qui omnia renovat et
sanctificat. Unum baptismum et unam Ecclesiam Paulus prædicat, non ipse, sed
ille de quo dicebat: Si experimentum aliquod quæritis Christi, qui per me
vobiscum loquitur.
|
Again, there is one Lord, and one
God, and one King; we do not profess the Holy Trinity to be Lords, or Gods,
or Kings. This agrees with what the Seraphim cry in the Temple: “Holy, Holy,
Holy” — thrice “Holy” and yet once “Lord” (Is 6:3). Since, indeed, there is
one lordship of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. There is one Lord
and God, the Father; for there is no other God the Father. And there is one
Lord and God, the Son; for there is no other Son. And there is one Lord and
God, the Holy Spirit: for there is no other God the Spirit, aside from the
Spirit of God. One is God the Father, from whom are all things. One is the
Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. And one is the Most Holy
Spirit, who renews and sanctifies all things. One baptism and one Church are
preached by Paul, or rather, not by himself, but by him of whom he said, “If
you seek some proof of Christ, who speaks to you through me” (2 Cor 13:3).
|
Genuit Pater Filium, non tamen in
Genitum suum mutatus fuit; sed est Pater, Pater; et Filius, Filius; et
Spiritus sanctus, Spiritus Dei. Genitus est Filius, nec tamen in Patrem
mutatus est; non enim in opprobrium vel in explosionem est Patris Filius, sed
ex scientia [Jugie: ex essentia] Ingeniti
Genitus. Ne diffidamus de divina generatione. Ne contemnamus et ipsius
carnalem nativitatem. Ne pessumdemus et voluntariam paupertatem. Dignitas
angelorum, honor coram standi est; dignitas Unigeniti sedere a dextra Patris.
Angeli vel nomen ipsum ministerii est, et archangeli principatus ministerii.
Deum autem apud Deum dici, nomen Dei est. Deum, inquam apud Deum, non Dii.
Non enim duos Ingenitos neque duos Genitos confitemur, sed unum Ingenitum et
unum Genitum, et unum Spiritum veritatis ex Patre procedentem.
|
The Father begot the Son, but he
has not been changed into the one begotten by him; but the Father is Father;
and the Son is Son; and the Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit. The Son is begotten,
but has not been changed into a Father; for it is in no way to his shame or
discredit to be Son of the Father, but he is begotten of the essence* of the
Unbegotten. Let us not show little faith in the divine generation. Let us
also not show contempt for his nativity in the flesh. Let us not put down his
voluntary poverty. The dignity of the angels is the honor of standing in his
presence; the dignity of the Only-begotten is to sit at the right hand of the
Father. Even the name itself “angel” names a ministerial function, and the
name “archangel” names a principal ministerial function. But to be called
“God” alongside God — that names God. God, I say, alongside God, not
“Gods.” For we do not confess two Unbegottens, nor two Begottens, but one
Unbegotten, and one Begotten, and one Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the
Father.
|
Tres et unus, unus et tres, quia
unam essentiam sanctæ Trinitatis profitemur, in tribus hypostasibus
perfectarum personarum. Non enim persona Patris est persona Filii, neque
persona Filii aut Spiritus sancti est persona Patris, quamquam jam inde ex
una ipsa essentia Patris est Filius et Spiritus sanctus. Quoniam Unigenitus
Filius, qui ante sæcula est et ex Patre et apud Patrem, Deus apud Deum, et
idem homo cum hominibus, non decidens a divinitate, etsi incarnatus
comperitur, non deturbatus a prima sua nativitate, etsi per carnalem
nativitatem ex Virgine apparuit in carne natus. Imo etiam dum in utero
Virginis erat, non erant ab ipso vacui cœli et terra universaque creatura.
|
Three and One, One and Three: for
we profess one essence of the Holy Trinity, in three hypostases of perfect
persons. For the person of the Father is not the person of the Son, nor is
the person of the Son, or that of the Holy Spirit, the person of the Father,
albeit it is, indeed, out of the one very essence of the Father that the Son
and the Holy Spirit exist. For the Only-begotten Son, who before all ages
exists both from the Father and with the Father, is God with God, and is, the
very same, man with men, without any falling away from his divinity, even if he
is found to have taken on manhood, nor is he cast down from his first
nativity, even if, by his fleshly nativity from a virgin, he has appeared as
one born in the flesh. Rather, even while he was in the Virgin’s womb, the
heavens and the earth and the whole creation had not been emptied of him.
|
Ingenito Deo Patri, et Genito ab
ipso Filio unigenito et Spiritui sancto procedenti ex illorum essentia,
tribus in una substantia omnis gloria, nunc et semper, et in sæcula
sæculorum. Amen.
|
To God the Father, the Unbegotten,
and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him, and to the Holy Spirit who
proceeds† from their essence, to the Three in One substance, be all glory,
now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.
|
*Reading, with Jugie, ex essentia instead of ex scientia.
†The Latin word procedere commonly translates a
number of different Greek words; what the original word Severian used here is
not clear. It might have been προϊέντι or προερχομένῳ, in which case the
translation would read “who comes forth from their essence.”
No comments:
Post a Comment