In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
I would like to thank the organisers for this undeserved opportunity to speak about St Severus of Antioch and his Homilies during this presentation. I have been a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church for 26 years and for all that time I have been a student of St Severus. He was one of the first Oriental Orthodox Father with whom I came into contact, and almost immediately it became clear to me how valuable and perceptive his writings were.
Indeed, over the years I have come to see that he is one of the great theologians of the Oriental Orthodox communion. He produced many significant texts in response to the Christological controversy in which he was engaged. But he also produced hundreds of hymns and several liturgical texts, as well as leaving a substantial body of correspondence. The three hundred or so letters on various topics seem to represent only one tenth of those which might have been found in the original collection in ancient times.
Most relevantly for the presentation today, we have more than 125 of the homilies which he preached as Archbishop and Patriarch of Antioch, and in other places. It will be the collection of these Cathedral Homilies in the Patrologia Orientalis series which will especially concern us here, as we use a few of them to gain a deeper appreciation of St Severus as a pastor and preacher, as well as a theologian and controversialist.
St Severus was born in Pisidia, a region of central Asia Minor in 465 A.D. There are two divergent traditions of his early life. One places him in an important and upper-class pagan family, while a rather later, but still early tradition, excludes this pagan family origin, and even proposes that he was the grandson of another Bishop Severus. In fact, in the Coptic translation of one of his own homilies, preached in the shrine of Leontius at Daphne, on the 18th June, 513, he says of himself, when he was student of Law at Berytos,
My heart was stirred within me, or rather, the God who loves mankind stirred my thought so that I should hasten to the martyr shrine of the holy martyr Leontius and pray. I set off from the town of Berytos, along with a friend of mine… and we came to his holy place and prayed. I, however, went off and prayed along, by myself, since I was still a Hellene (a Greek pagan). This is what I said: Holy Leontius, holy martyr, petition your God on my behalf, so that he may save me from the religious cult of the Hellenes, and from the customs of my ancestors… Thus it was that the God of the Universe, Christ Jesus, converted me from the error of the Hellenes, through the prayers of the holy martyr, Leontius. (Two Early Lives of Severus. Brock and Fitzgerald)
He became a Christian, and still intended to become a lawyer, travelling with his friend Zacharias, who became his biographer. It was not until after the death of St Peter the Iberian in 491 A.D. that he determined to take up the monastic life in his monastery at Maiuma under his successor, the Abbot Theodore. He gave himself up to a very strict ascesis with some companions in a monastic retreat near Eleutheropolis, which rather harmed their health, and in about 500 A.D. he had returned to Maiuma, where he was made a priest.
In 508 A.D., St Severus and the disciples who had gathered around him, with other monastics, were driven out of the monasteries in Gaza, due to the efforts of the Egyptian monk, Nephalius, acting under the authority of Elias of Jerusalem. St Severus and Nephalius both travelled to Constantinople to make their cases, and while Nephalius gained the support of Archbishop Makedonius of Constantinople, Severus gained support in the court and with the Emperor, Anastasius. St Severus stayed in the capital appearing to have been an influence in the publication of the Typos of Anastasius, which explained the Henotikon in a non-Chalcedonian manner. By 511 A.D he was attending a council at Sidon, at which the Emperor hoped that the two sides could be reconciled. This was not possible, and the synod was disbanded by the Imperial legate. The following year, at a Synod in Antioch, Flavian of Antioch was deposed, and Severus was elected his successor. It was as a result of this elevation to the episcopate that he began to give the series of homilies which were recorded and collected as the Cathedral Homilies.
Between November 512 A.D., and September 518 A.D., he preached 125 homilies which are in the collection. In September 518 A.D., with the accession of Justin as Emperor, he had to flee from Antioch on foot, with a small group of companions, as the comes Irenaeus was sent to arrest him and cut out his tongue. Travelling over the mountains he was eventually able to escape by boat to Cyprus, and then to Egypt, where he spent the rest of his life in exile.
During these almost six years of his Patriarchate, and of course he continued to be Patriarch in his exile as far as he was able, he produced homilies on a wide range of topics and for a variety of occasions. These homilies circulated as a collection even during the lifetime of St Severus and were found in two editions. The first was by Paul of Callincum in 528 A.D., and the second was by James of Edessa, and was completed in 701 A.D.
Over the years of his Patriarchate we find the collection includes: thirty-three homilies in the year from November 512; twenty-six homilies in the year from November 513; nineteen homilies in the year from November 514; nineteen homilies in the year from November 515; fourteen homilies in the year from November 516; and thirteen homilies in the months after November 517 and his exile from Antioch.
The catalogue of his homilies, or at least those in the collection, include regular ones on the Feasts of the Church, and on the commemoration of the Saints. He preaches every year on the Nativity, and the Epiphany, and during the Holy Week. He commemorates various saints in a regular way, the Virgin St Mary of course, but also saints which were especially honoured in Antioch, such as Thecla, Ignatius, Barlaha, Drosis and Babylas. He also preached on saints important to himself, such as Leontius of Tripolis, and the Cappadocians, Basil and Gregory, and Antony the Great. He gives homilies on several political events, such as the gifts or beneficence of the Emperor Anastasius. While some of his homilies deal with exegetical questions and difficulties in Scripture which had been put to him by members of the congregation. Others were on pastoral matters, such as the criticism of attendance at the games by those who also attended the Liturgy.
The titles and subjects of his homilies are given in the edition by James of Edessa translated anciently from Greek into Syriac and then into French in the Patrologia Orientalis series. Some of these descriptions are quite lengthy in themselves. The first homily, given on the occasion of his consecration as Archbishop of Antioch says,
This is the first discourse given by Saint Severus, after he had been ordained Archbishop of the Church of the city of Antioch; and which he pronounced again, two days later, in the sanctuary of the holy martyr Romanos, at the request of a large number of people who could not hear him because of the tumult and the clamour of the large crowd which had met on the day it was ordained.
It is in some of these little descriptive asides that we especially gain an insight into the conditions of the times. The crowd in the Cathedral had been so large and so noisy that many people had not been able to hear what he had said. But they were concerned enough it seems, to have asked him to preach again on a quieter occasion a few days later. Why was the church so crowded and tumultuous on the occasion of his consecration? The city of Antioch was divided. There were certainly those who been earnestly waiting for a bishop such as St Severus, critical of Chalcedon and a disciple of St Cyril of Alexandria, to occupy the episcopal throne. But there were others who were still supportive of the recently deposed Flavian and who shared the same views as him.
He introduces himself in this first of his homilies which we can usefully consider in a little detail, by saying,
And now I, a weak sinner, do not know the purpose which has been formed over me by the foreknowledge and wisdom of God beyond all thought, so that I am placed beyond my merits on this sacred pulpit. And behold, now I gaze upon this great church full of people, overflowing in the Spirit and shining on all sides with the rays of the light of the Orthodox faith, it is time for me to remind you of the words of the Patriarch Jacob, and to say: This is the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.
Of course an educated person would have been trained to use rhetoric, and it might be said that some of these thoughts are mere convention. But a familiarity with the writings of St Severus, especially his letters, would allow us to see that he was not one of those who insisted on his position. Quite the opposite. We have an account from the Coptic Orthodox tradition which says,
When St Severus came to Egypt, he went disguised from place to place and from monastery to monastery, and God made many signs and wonders by his hands.
One day, he went to the desert of Scete, at Wadi-El Natroun, and he entered the church in a clothing of a monk from another place and a great miracle took place at that time. It came to pass, that after the priest had placed the bread on the altar and gone around the church offering the incense, and after the reading of the Epistles and the Gospel, he lifted off the Altar Covering, and did not find the bread on the paten. So, the priest was disturbed and wept. He turned towards the worshippers saying, “O my brethren, I did not find the bread on the paten, and I do not know whether this thing has happened because of my sin or because of your sin.” The people wept, and immediately, the angel of the Lord appeared to the priest and told him, “This has happened neither because of your sin or because of the sin of the worshippers but because you made the offering in the presence of the Patriarch. The priest replied, “And where is he, O my Lord?” The angel pointed towards St. Severus. He was standing in a corner of the church and the priest recognized him by the grace of the Holy Spirit. The priest came to Abba Severus, who commanded him to continue the liturgy after they brought him to the altar with great honour. When the priest had gone up to the altar he found the offering on the paten as before. They all praised God and glorified His Holy Name.
With this account in mind, we should not read these opening words of his first homily as Patriarch of Antioch as if he was not personally aware of his own weakness, and also aware of the great responsibility and burden which he was taking upon himself, especially in a time of controversy. It is always a mistake to imagine that in 451 A.D., after the Council of Chalcedon, there were immediately two completely separate churches, each claiming to be Orthodox. On the contrary, in 512 A.D., when he ascended the episcopal throne of Antioch there was one Imperial Church, though it was riven with controversy, division and disorder. It was entirely possible that the Church could be restored to what was understood by St Severus as a Cyrilline Orthodoxy, which excluded the error considered to have been promoted at Chalcedon. There was still only one Church, but it was not clear in which direction it might be encouraged to turn, and so those on both sides were active and always engaged in polemics and politics to ensure it turned the way that they thought most Orthodox.
St Severus connects himself to his audience in his opening paragraphs in this first homily, and of course Antioch was one of the great cities of the Empire and well aware of its importance and history. He reminds them that it was at Antioch that the followers of Christ were first called Christians, and says,
This is the people on whom the holy name of Christ was written, and which before all others were called Christians… But this city, the friend of Christ, which bears all kinds of spiritual graces, was troubled by the storm of impiety, which was first raised by Diodore, and by Theodore, the leaders of the impure heresy produced by the spirits of evil, which was excited still more by their disciple of the same type, Nestorius, when he was blinded like them by the glare of the devil’s madness.
St Severus commends those who are gathered before him. He speaks of their history as if it is something universally acknowledged and honoured, so that Antioch is said to bear all kinds of spiritual graces. This is surely an appropriate method of introducing himself to a disturbed congregation and city. But it was disturbed, and we remember that he had to repeat the homily a few days later because he could not be heard by all. What was the cause of this disturbance in the city? He is careful not to blame the ordinary people of the city, but he turns his criticism and condemnation to those who were the leaders of heresy, and who raised a storm upon the city and her people. These were Diodore, Theodore of Mopsuestia and then Nestorius, who of course had been a well-known priest and preacher in the city before he became Archbishop of Constantinople.
He goes on to describe how the council of Chalcedon made the waves of this storm rise even higher. But we can find even in references here and there important insights into his own understanding of the controversy, expressed in a simple way which he intended to communicate and to teach. So he says, in the first homily,
This synod, in fact, even if it provided a remedy for the evil heresy of Eutyches in a certain way, also introduced into the Church the madness of Nestorius which forfeits the soul, and by undertaking to cure evil with evil, as the saying goes, it became the cause of great sickness and not of salvation, for the body of Christ which is the Church.
It would have been impossible in this first homily for these Christological issues not to have been raised. But St Severus raises them in a manner which can be understood and accepted. Antioch is a great city with an honoured heritage. It was those leaders of heresy, Diodore, Theodore and Nestorius, who have caused such confusion and controversy, not the ordinary people of the city. And then Chalcedon, which it could be said had dealt with the evil heresy of Eutyches, a heresy which St Severus clearly and entirely rejects, introduced once again, at the same time, the madness of Nestorius.
But what is the issue? What is it that will define the episcopate and the teaching of St Severus as he preaches for the first time in Antioch as Patriarch and Archbishop. It is this, the beginning of his argument, in which he says,
In fact the only begotten Son, the Word of God, the one who was incarnated and became man for us, without change or transformation, the synod divided him into two natures after the ineffable and incomprehensible union. It described him incorrectly as if he was a man who had suffered death and the cross, and that it was not the Lord of glory whom they crucified, after having suffered for us in the flesh truly, though God incomprehensible and unmoved in his nature.
For if the immortal Word of God the Father had not made himself one through hypostasis with the mortal, I mean the body belonging to the same essence as us, where there is an intelligent soul, there was no way that death touched him entirely.
This is the substance of the teaching, of the theology, of almost everything that St Severus writes. Not as if he lacked imagination to consider other issues and subjects. But because this was the issue of the times, and it was a matter of salvation not mere speculation. As a committed Orthodox Christian, a monk, a priest, a theologian, and now a Bishop, it was the care of the Church, and the salvation of souls which mattered, and demanded that he speak out, even and especially in a time of controversy.
What is he insisting, even in his first homily and to a general audience in the Cathedral? It is that the Son and Word of has become incarnate, and truly man of the same essence as us, without change, so that it is God himself who was crucified in his humanity, and not a man apart from God, because if he had not become truly man, with an intelligent, that is a thinking and willing soul, then he had not really died.
There is no confession of any confusion in this exact statement, nor is there any denial of the true humanity which the Word took to himself, with intelligence, rationality and will. Indeed, he continues,
But having become flesh and man, and having also continued to be God unchanged, he, this same Word of God, tasted death for us after he became flesh for us, and he continued to be immortal, because he is immortal according to his nature. Therefore, the one who first confesses with an upright heart, a firm mind and an unchanging faith, that the Word of God was made flesh in a flesh belonging to the same essence as us, will still confess that the same is truly God and man. Such a one will attribute to the same individual the sufferings and wonders that belong to the divinity and to mankind, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection, and immortality.
What is his concern? He does not allow any change in the divinity. He insists on a true humanity which is of the same essence as ours. He confesses that the Word is truly God and man. And especially, he wants to make sure that we understand that it is this one person, this one individual, the Word of God who is God and man, who is the individual who experiences himself everything divine and everything human, the wonders and the suffering, as his own according to his own divinity and humanity.
What is the problem? Why is there such controversy and a need to speak out? He says,
Let us flee now, O people who are friends of Christ, the folly of the new Jews, that is to say, of those who gathered at the synod of Chalcedon, who divided this indivisible into two natures…
St Severus is still commending the congregation in front of him, these who are the friends of Christ. But he wants them to accept his argument. The council of Chalcedon is to be rejected because it divides this indivisible person, the Word of God who is God and man without confusion. He is not criticising Chalcedon because it confesses the true humanity of Christ. He is not criticising Chalcedon because it confesses that the divinity is unchanged. He criticises Chalcedon because he understands it to follow the Tome of Leo which says that the Word is glorified while the flesh suffers, as if the Word did not suffer in his flesh. If the Word did not suffer in his flesh, so that he is said truly to suffer, then it is our salvation which is undermined, since it was not the Word of God who suffered on the Cross in his humanity.
How many of his congregation understood this distinction? Was it necessarily beyond them, or was this in fact a language of controversy which in its simple and basic form, as he presents it here, was known and reflected on by many Christians? The Word of God incarnate, true God and true man, incarnate without change, must be the one indivisible subject of all of his experience, both human and divine, so that we can say that God truly suffered and died in his flesh, rather than that his flesh suffered and died apart from him.
This is as significant a difference when considered now, as it was when St Severus raised it in this homily. What response does St Severus want of his audience? He is not concerned simply to present a theological argument, he wants it to make a difference, and to be a definite principle around which the faithful members of his See will gather. He says,
Let us confess one Lord of glory, that is, Emmanuel, one person, one hypostasis, one incarnate nature of God the Word, according to the formula transmitted to us by our holy inspired Father, and do not pray with those who dare to separate the flesh of our Saviour from the Divinity, with two natures after the ineffable and incomprehensible union, thinking thus to honour the divinity.
This is what he understands as the failure of the Chalcedonian position. Two natures does not represent for him the diversity of humanity and divinity without change, which he is careful to preserve at all costs. Rather it represents for him the introduction to two subjects, rather than the Word being the subject of his own divinity and his own humanity. In insisting on this he is entirely Orthodox in every respect. The one incarnate nature of which he speaks, following St Cyril of Alexandria, is the one identity or individual of the Word of God who is God and man without change or confusion. To speak of two natures, after Leo of Rome, as St Severus understood it, was to say that the flesh was another identity other than the Word.
Of course, St Severus was not only concerned about what he saw as Chalcedonian error, but he devoted much of his attention to resisting the error which denied the humanity of Christ. In this same first homily, he says,
Going astray in such vain thoughts, they dared to say that God the Word was not made flesh in truth. But they said that he took the appearance of a man, that he left his home to enter this world, in a sort of vision which one sees in the imagination of sleep; so that at last they made the Economy of our salvation a kind of baseless dream.
All of this matters, as far as St Severus is concerned, because if the Word of God had not become man, in our own humanity, then we could not become sons and daughters of God. The reconciliation of God and man, our salvation, could not have taken place, if everything of Christ was nothing but a dream. He wants his congregation to take a middle way between the division of Chalcedon as he sees it, and the phantasy of the Eutychianists on the other. He says to them,
Let us confess that Emmanuel is one, that he is God the Word of the Father, who became man through his love for men. That it is not at all possible to consider the two natures after the indissoluble union, but “one incarnate nature of God the Word”, that is to say one who became man, while being God also.
Because, on the one hand, he took flesh from the Virgin Mary belonging to the same essence as us, and we confess this without any hesitation. And, on the other hand, since the flesh which he took was one with the Word of the Father, for this reason we say that he is one, the Son of God, and that there is only one incarnate nature of God the Word.
We confess without hesitation he says, we confess without hesitation that he took flesh from the Virgin Mary of the same essence as us. He really became man, that is not the issue. But being God and man in truth, we must insist that he is One, it is God the Word who is made man, and therefore who suffers and dies, in the humanity which is his own, and which is united with him according to hypostasis, and not by conjunction.
Is that all that St Severus will say in his homily? Is he only interested in the Christological controversy, and in presenting it in a way that his audience will understand and accept? In fact in this first homily, and in all of his preaching, while he will speak about theological truth, he will also be sure to add a personal and spiritual application.
He now starts addressing the spiritual condition of his new congregation. He says,
What advantage is there for him who speaks about the sublime dogmas of religion, and does not first purify his tongue from lying and detraction, or from hypocrisy and cunning? As a wise man said, The blessing is not beautiful in the mouth of the sinner.
So he turns from theology to our spiritual life. What is the point of knowing these truths he has been describing, if we do not also purify ourselves and especially the tongue. It is of no benefit to us. It will even be for our condemnation.
He says,
We also, my brethren, give glory to Him who was made flesh for us, by mortifying the thoughts of the flesh which are enemies of the spirit; let us give glory to the Word of the Father by restraining the indomitable impulse of passions insane by continence.
This is how he applies the Christological content of his homily in a practical and spiritual manner. If Christ became truly man then surely we should follow his example and put to death all those thoughts which arise in us and are enemies of the spiritual life. If we want to glorify God who has become man for our salvation then surely we must restrain every impulse of the passions. How can we speak of God, if our tongue is impure? How can we glorify God who has become man of the same essence as us, if we make no effort to be men and women living as he did?
What does all of this look like? St Severus gives some ideas, linking them all to the idea of giving glory to God the Word who has become man for us. He says,
Let us give glory to the Merciful one by becoming merciful to those who are like us. Let us give glory to the Friend of men, by not being bound in our heart to him who has become our enemy. Let us give glory to Him who suffered for us, by making ourselves ready to suffer for his name.
I have wanted to look at this first homily in a little detail because it illustrates much of what we could find in all of the homilies of St Severus. There is a connection with the audience, an accurate theology, and a practical and spiritual application. These are not simply lectures being given in Church but are always intended to have a positive and spiritual effect on those who hear them.
We can consider another homily, number 67 in the collection, with the title, on Mary, Holy Mother of God and Ever Virgin. It was preached in the third annual cycle of homilies which are provided for us. It begins with the same personal comments which St Severus used in homily 1. He is speaking about himself when he says,
When I want to focus my attention on the Virgin Mother of God and touch simply on the thoughts that concern her, at the beginning of my steps it seems to me that a voice comes to me from God and sounds loudly in my ears: Do not approach here, take the shoes from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.
In homily 21, given on the occasion of the annual catechesis of the Wednesday of Pascha Week, he adopts the same personal approach in his introduction. He says,
The term catechesis produces great fear in me, and with good reason. In fact, I consider in myself, not so much what to say, as when to keep silent; and I will not trust new ears, which are not trained in hearing divine dogmas and which still need milk and not solid food as the wise Paul says.
And in homily 56, when he had set off to visit some of the towns in his See, and the meeting was interrupted, he speaks personally again, and says,
There are many reasons why I should not pass through your town in silence, but make my voice heard in this faithful and loving assembly of God, which is the Church of the living God, and to show the good will of my own thought, although I have nothing to say which is powerful or which is particularly useful.
Of course this is not universally the case, but it does seem that St Severus likes to begin his homilies with a personal connection with the audience and congregation. He does seem to present himself often in the same humble way in which he appears in his first homily.
But he does then seem to often develop a theological theme. In the homily on the Virgin Mary, and he composed many hymns in her honour also, we find that after introducing his own inadequacy, he says,
She belonged to the earth, was part of humanity by its nature and was of the same essence as us, although it was pure from all defilement and immaculate, and she produced from her own womb as well as from heaven, God who was made flesh, because she conceived and bore in a very divine way. It is not that she gave the divine nature to the one who is born, for he possessed it before any beginning and before every age, but it is because she has given him human nature without experiencing change, and that by herself and by the ineffable and mysterious coming of the Holy Spirit.
This is a necessary theological statement. God who became man was conceived and born in a divine way, by the Holy Spirit, but the Virgin Mary did not produce the divine nature, rather she gave him the human nature without change.
When St Severus addresses a theological point he does so with accuracy and exactitude, but he also seems careful to express himself in a manner that will be understood by his audience. He says enough to make his point, but he is not giving a theological lecture.
In his Catechetical lecture, in homily 21, we find that of course he does address theology. He says,
When you believe in one God the Father, also believe “in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, who was begotten of his essence, who is consubstantial with the Father, who is light from light and true God from the true God”, the Word, the Life, the image of the invisible God, the imprint of the Father’s hypostasis.
He does address Christology and says, among other things,
It is he who became incarnate for us in the last days, and he became man of the Holy Spirit and of the Holy Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary. And the cause of the in-humanation, what is it? It is that man, made in his image, who, because of his own folly and the deceit of the Slanderer, as it is written previously, was excluded from the blissful and painless life of Paradise.
And he does address the controversies of the time when he says,
We will therefore not divide him after the union according to the duality of natures; otherwise, we would run the risk of being accused of being idolaters, adoring at the same time as God, according to the folly of Nestorius, the man who subsists by himself. But we will profess him one and the same of two natures, of divinity and of humanity; and, by worshiping him, we will be beyond reproach. In the same way as us, in fact, the Word of God participated in the flesh and the blood which is animated by an intelligent soul.
Yet it would be a mistake to imagine that the concern of St Severus in preaching these things is in an academic and intellectual appreciation of various propositions and truths. Just as his first homily developed into a call to personal holiness and purity, so as to be worthy of speaking of theological matters. So, in this catechetical homily, he begins with various Scriptural types, which have just such a personal application, and he concludes with various Scriptural prophecies, so that his substance is placed in a personal context, and a spiritual context.
He begins, for instance with the thought of the magnitude of speaking and thinking about God, saying,
Such is the mountain of theology; on the one hand, it is accessible to those like Moses who are in perfection – and this when God calls him, because when the divine call does not open the way and does not encourage even those who are in his condition, it is quite Incomprehensible. On the other hand, for those who have only really been purified in a mediocre way, as was then the case for the children of Israel who were only purified for a time, it is not only incomprehensible, but also inaccessible and unapproachable.
There is a personal application here, even before he has begun to speak about the Holy Trinity, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Should the catechumen abandon his journey then, being unqualified in every way for such knowledge? St Severus encourages him, saying,
However, it is not entirely inaccessible, for they are allowed to stand nearby, to hear the trumpet which prepares for the hearing of the words which are introduced in stages, that is to say the dogmas, and to receive somewhat obscurely the first words of the teaching, like lightning which coming from the cloud illuminates and races at the same time; and it is by ascents in perfection that they will approach, reach to it, and be lifted up at the same time by hearing.
This represents the spiritual quality of the pastoral literature and ministry of St Severus. He was not a polemicist by choice, but a monastic and a bishop. This idea of the ascent in perfection, and of stages in theological knowledge and insight is entirely patristic and is found in the writings of the Cappadocians, as well as many other Fathers. In this homily he is both demanding a certain preparation and humility before considering the knowledge of God in theology, but he is also encouraging an advance and progress in those who hear him and will shortly receive baptism.
Towards the end of this same catechetical homily he turns again to the Old Testament and reflects on various types and prophecies. Ezekiel had a vision of waters
…which descend to the land which is not inhabited…
And he finds the spiritual interpretation in this and says,
These waters which flow in Galilee and cross the sea, are the Jordan, in which the seed of holy baptism was sown by our Saviour. These waters which descend towards the land, which is not inhabited, these represents us, we who are deserted and uninhabited by all divine grace, we who were idle and empty according to the word of the Gospel where seven spirits lived who were very evil. And this word also: They descend, shows the mercy of a charitable God, whereby such grace has come down on us who were not worthy.
This is the context in which he gives some detailed Theological and Christological teaching. That we are ascending the mountain on the one hand, and must be prepared and purified, and that this ascent will be a life-long effort. While on the other hand, these waters of baptism are prepared by God, and prefigured in the Old Testament, and they represent a gift and a mercy we do not deserve.
This particular homily has another wonderful and personal touch at the end, when St Severus asks those who are preparing for baptism to pray for him. He says,
But you, as you go towards the life-giving river, remember me, I ask you and I beg you; for until now I am overwhelmed by the salty waves of sufferings, and you cannot grant me another grace greater than this. And the Triune God will give you what you ask for, because he is understood and praised as the One, in whose name you are going to be baptized.
There is a sense here that those who have just been baptised and brought into the experience of new life in Christ and the fulness of the Holy Spirit are especially worthy to pray. But there is also, it seems to me, a genuine expression here of the humility of St Severus, the Archbishop and Patriarch of one of the great Sees of the Church, asking these catechumens to pray for him in the difficulties and controversies he faces.
Many of these homilies deal with matters that bring a particular theological point into focus, and which St Severus discusses. But there are some whose titles represent a pastoral and disciplinary concern. Homily 26 has the title,
A warning or admonition against the horse shows, the first of which took place after the Spring, so that we might flee from harmful entertainment and the evils which flow from it, and on the holy martyr Theodore.
Even in this case, where he is clearly going to be critical of some in his audience, he begins, as we have seen in other examples, by commending the congregation, and expressing himself with humility before them. He says,
Just as a good father, seeing his son show a constant application for one of his studies and for the profession he is learning, is happy, delighted in his heart and proud of his son’s good nature, likewise I, seeing that this Church and this holy assembly have an eager application to hear the divine words and – what follows on from them – to know and learn the virtues, I rejoice very much in myself and I am grateful to God, who compensates for the defect of my tongue by your intelligent hearing.
This is surely a wise way for any preacher to begin to admonish his flock. He continues for several paragraphs, describing the virtues of the Church in Antioch, and its Orthodoxy, and its seeking after spiritual treasures. All of these encouraging words of praise allow him to raise the issue of the day, by saying,
So when I saw you now, as I have said, with all this spiritual wealth, I was afraid that something bad would happen to you. And indeed I had in mind the spectacle of the horse races, the first that was to take place, and I was filled with worry and turmoil in my thoughts. and I was terribly afraid that the devil, this evil one, would draw some of you by deceiving them with a fleeting entertainment and that he would make those who deserved to see the divine invisible and ineffable mysteries, the spectators of a pomp of Satan.
Instead of blaming those who have been attending the horse races the day before the Liturgy, he suggests they have been deceived by Satan and not through their own fault. In his homily he elaborates on what takes place at these events and compares them to what they have been experiencing in the Church that very day. He concludes..
Let someone judge, on reflection, if there is anything happier than pleasing God?
There is no detailed Theology or Christology in this homily, nor in some of the others which have such a practical object in mind. We see St Severus the pastor and shepherd in these words, encouraging and directing the flock. Guarding it from every danger. And it is in this context that we must understand the Theology and Christology, even the polemics and controversy, which do appear in many of the homilies, together with a personal and spiritual application. It is for the sake of his congregation, for their salvation, and to preserve them from error. It is never argument for arguments sake, as we see when he turns to a pastoral matter and expresses himself without controversy.
His homilies represent him as a humble man, willing to deprecate himself before his flock. He is a pastor and always has in mind the spiritual ascent to perfection of those in his care. He preaches with a deep and personal knowledge of the Scriptures and many of the Fathers of the Church. The Theological, Christological and controversial aspects of his homilies are aspects of this pastoral and spiritual intent before all else. His purpose is described at the close of his first homily, and is expressed in each one which he preached while Archbishop, when he says,
Let us hasten to enter the eternal kingdom of heaven! So that it might be that we all receive it!
May his prayers be with us all, and glory be to God forever, Amen.