Honorius I, 625-638

[From the epistle (1) "Scripta fraternitatis vestrae" to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople in the year 634]

. . . With God as a leader we shall arrive at the measure of the right faith which the apostles of the truth have extended by means of the slender rope of the Sacred Scriptures. Confessing that the Lord Jesus Christ, the mediator of God and of men [1 Tim. 2:5], has performed divine (works) through the medium of the humanity naturally [gr. hypostatically] united to the Word of God, and that the same one performed human works, because flesh had been assumed ineffably and particularly by the full divinity [gr. in--] distinctly, unconfusedly, and unchangeably . . . so that truly it may be recognized that by a wonderful design [passible flesh] is united [to the Godhead] while the differences of both natures marvelously remain. . . . Hence, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ also, because surely our nature, not our guilt was assumed by the Godhead, that certainly, which was created before sin, not that which was vitiated after the transgression. For Christ . . . was conceived of the Holy Spirit without sin, and was also born of the holy and immaculate Virgin mother of God without sin, experiencing no contagion of our vitiated nature. . . . For there was no other law in His members, or a will different from or contrary to the Savior, because He was born above the law of the human nature. . . . There are extensive works of sacred literature pointing out very clearly that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son and the Word of God, by whom all things were made [John 1:3], is Himself the one operator of divinity and of humanity. But whether on account of the works of divinity and of humanity, one or two operations ought to be said or understood to be derived, such (questions) should not concern us, leaving them to the grammarians, who are accustomed to sell to children words acquired by derivation. For in sacred literature we have perceived that the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit operated not one operation or two, but we have learned that (He) operated in many ways.

[From the epistle (2) "Scripta dilectissimi filii" to the same Sergius]

. . . So far as pertains to ecclesiastical doctrine, what we ought to hold or to preach on account of the simplicity of men and the inextricable ambiguities of questions (which) must be removed . . . . is to define not one or two operations in the mediator of God and of men, but both natures united in one Christ by a natural union, when we should confess those operating with the participation of the other and the operators, both the divine, indeed, performing what is of God, and the human performing what is of the flesh; teaching [that they operate] neither separately, nor confusedly, nor interchangeably, the nature of God changed into man, and the human changed into God; but con. fessing the complete differences of the natures. . . Therefore, doing away with . . . the scandal of the new invention, we, when we are explaining, should not preach one or two operations; but instead of one operation, which some affirm, we should confess one operator, Christ the Lord, in both natures; and instead of two operations-when the expression of two operations has been done away with-rather of the two natures themselves, that is of divinity and of the flesh assumed, in one person, the Only-begotten of God the Father unconfusedly, inseparably, and unchangeably performing their proper (works) with us.

[More from this epistle see Kch. n. 1065-1069]