|
HOME | GREEK LANGUAGE |
LIBRARIES |
BLOG | HELP | SEARCH | BOOKSTORE | FREEWARE |
|
|
Translated by P. E. Pusey
St Cyril of Alexandria Resources Online and in Print
|
This Part: 115 Pages
Page 98
Hath the Godhead then (tell me) become the acquisition[ ]of a man, and hath it befallen any one of us, to become God by Nature and in truth and to be rich in the excellence of the Essence that is above all and Supreme? Away with the ill-counsel, o man, for none of those accounted among things generate may acquire and have as his own the Nature of Godhead: His own was the Body of the Word and as one therewith God and Christ and Son and Lord hath the creation worshipped, and the Heavens do praise and we with them. For as the Prophet saith, His Goodness covered the Heavens and of His Praise was the earth full, not as though a man gat Godhead (for how or whence could he?) but that the Word out of God the Father had come into possession of flesh of man. But be it that he who was taken out of men was owner of Godhead (as seems good to yourself), how is he ordained in things to Godward, i. e., as High Priest? will he therefore bare of the Godhead which he gat, minister in the Priest's office to God, or already having it as his own? for this and nought else will the saying that he gat it signify. But if bare of it, he gat it not; if having it as his own, Godhead will surely minister in the Priest's office to God. Why then do you wander distractedly and jumble all together and blush not, stamping with false mark the tradition of the Faith?
The Word out of God the Father hath cogent reason even though He be said to execute the Priest's Office before the Father; for He has been styled Priest not apart from flesh, but made (as I said) as we, to whom the glory of the priesthood is accounted an honour.
In another way too it is not hard to see that it is the absurdest possible thing and replete with much folly to say that he who was taken out of men and ordained unto God-ward, is possessor of Godhead; for if he were taken by God, how possessed he the Nature Which took him? for that which is taken will rather belong to him who took it, as a possession, not that which is taken be the possessor. As for example, A man has become the possessor of wealth, or again of skill unto anything: is it not plain to all that he will not himself be the possession of wealth or again of the skill that accrued to him, but rather the possessor of what he has gotten? but this is I think in no way doubtful.
Hence if on enquiring into the mode of the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, we find that man became God as coming into possession of Godhead, let him be called (after your phrase) possessor of Godhead, for his hath the Godhead become. But if the Word being God came into possession of the seed of Abraham, and being in the form of the Father, hath become Man, receiving the servant's form, how would one not be distraught, if he chose to say that that which was taken possessed the Nature That acquired it and hath not rather become the very own of Him Who took it?
But that he carries round the force of his own words and inventions and moreover the very name of high Priesthood in unlearned wise unto a mere man born from forth a woman, bearing it away from the Only-Begotten and Word That is out of the Father, he will make manifest by what follows too: for he has written again on this wise:
Reference address : https://www.elpenor.org/cyril-alexandria/against-nestorius.asp?pg=98
