|
HOME | GREEK LANGUAGE |
LIBRARIES |
BLOG | HELP | SEARCH | BOOKSTORE | FREEWARE |
|
|
Translated by R. Payne Smith
St Cyril of Alexandria Resources Online and in Print
|
This Part: 128 Pages
Page 28
And after this, he again brings forward a second proof, saying, "I indeed baptize you in water: but He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and in fire." And this too is of great importance for the proof and demonstration that Jesus is God and Lord. For it is the sole and peculiar property of the Substance That transcends all, to be able to bestow on men the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, and make those that draw near unto It partakers of the divine nature. But this exists in Christ, not as a thing received, nor by communication from another, but as His own, and as belonging to His substance: for "He baptizes in the Holy Ghost." The Word therefore That became man is, as it appears, God, and the fruit of the Father's substance. But to this, it may be, those will object who divide the one Christ into two sons,----those I mean who, as Scripture says, are "animal, and dividers, and having not the Spirit,"----that He Who baptizes in the Holy Ghost is the Word of God, and not He Who is of the seed of David. What answer shall we make, then, to this? Yes! we too affirm, without fear of contradiction, that the Word being God as of His own fulness bestows the Holy Ghost on such as are worthy: but this He still wrought, even when He was made man, as being the One Son with the flesh united to Him in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner. For so the blessed Baptist, after first saying, "I am not worthy to stoop down "and loose the thong [42] of His shoes," immediately added, "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and in fire;" plainly while having feet for shoes. For no one whose mind was awake would say, that the Word, while still incorporeal, and not as yet made like unto us, had feet and shoes, but only when He had become a man. Inasmuch, however, as He did not then cease to be God, He wrought even so works worthy of the Godhead, by giving the Spirit unto them that believe in Him. For He, in one and the same person, was at the same time both God and also man.
But yes, he objects, the Word wrought the works of Deity by means of Him Who is of the seed of David. If so then thou arguest, we will repeat to thee in answer the words of John; for he somewhere said unto the Jews, "There cometh after me a man Who was before me, because He is before me: and I knew Him not, but He That sent me to baptize in water, He said unto me, Upon Whom thou seest the Spirit descending from heaven, and abiding upon Him, This is He That baptizeth in the Holy Ghost: and I saw, and bare witness, that This is the Son of God." Behold, therefore, while plainly calling Him a man, he says that He is prior to him, and was before him, in that He is first, evidently in His divine nature; according to what was plainly said by Himself to the Jewish populace, "Verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am."
Next, he says as well, that the Spirit also came down from heaven upon Him. Do they pretend that the Holy Ghost came down upon the Word of God while still abstract and incorporeal? and represent Him Who bestows the Spirit as made partaker of His own Spirit? Or rather is this their meaning, that having received the Spirit in His human nature, He in His divine nature baptizes in the Holy Ghost? For He is Himself singly, and alone, and verily the Son of God the Father, as the blessed Baptist, being taught of God, himself bare witness, saying, "And I saw, and bare witness that This is the Son of God!" [43]
Wouldst thou have also a third proof, in addition to what have already been given? "His fan," he says, "is in His hand, and He shall purge His floor, and gather His wheat into His stores, but the chaff He shall burn with fire unquenchable." For he compares those upon earth to ears of corn, or rather to the threshingfloor and the wheat upon it: for each one of us has grown like an ear of corn. And our Lord once, when speaking to the holy Apostles, made a similar comparison of our state: "The harvest indeed is great: but the labourers are few: pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send forth labourers into His harvest." We therefore, who are upon the earth, are called ears of corn and wheat, and the harvest. And this harvest belongs to God over all: for He is Lord of all. But behold! says the blessed Baptist, the threshing floor belongs to Christ as its owner; for as such He purges it, removing and separating the chaff from the wheat. For the wheat is the just, whose faith is established and assured: but the chaff signifies those whose mind is weak, and their heart easy to be ensnared, and unsafe and timorous, and blown about by every wind. The wheat, then, he says, is stored up in the granary: is deemed worthy, that is, of safety at God's hand, and mercy, and protection and love: but the chaff, as useless matter, is consumed in the fire.
In every way, therefore, we may perceive that the Word of God, even when He was man, nevertheless continued to be one Son. [44] For He performs those works that belong to Deity, possessing the majesty and glory of the Godhead inseparable from Him. If so we believe, He will crown us with His grace: by Whom and with Whom to God the Father be glory and dominion with the Holy Ghost, for ever and ever, Amen.[45]
42.[t] The Catenist in Mai has inserted in a parenthesis a curious observation, namely, that by the σφαιρωτήρ is meant "the tip of the shoe, ending in a point, such as the barbarians wear." The word, however, used by the Evangelist is ἱμάς simply a "thong:" and there can be no doubt that in the Septuagint, whence Cyril's word is taken, Gen. xiv. 23, the right reading is σφυρωτήρ, "a thong for the ankles," whereas σφαιρωτήρ, from σφαῖρα, "a ball," is the word for the pomegranates, used in the adorning of the golden candlestick. (Ex. xxv.31.)
43.[v] In the above defence of catholic doctrine against the heresies of Nestorius, S. Cyril must be taken as meaning, that the natural result of Nestorius' teaching is to divide the one Christ into two sons, and not that he expressly so taught. For in his seventeenth quaternion he says, "God the Word, even before the incarnation, was Son, and God, and coexistent with the Father: but in these last times assumed the form of the slave. But while, before He was Son, and so called; after the assumption of the flesh, He cannot be called Son separately, lest we should infer two Sons." The doctrine of Nestorius, as briefly sketched by the Council of Ephesus, was, that "He Who for our sakes became man, must not be called God." Hence his objection to the title θεοτόκος applied to the Virgin, and so valued by the fathers as expressing the inseparable union of the Divine and human natures in the one person of Christ. Hence his protest against worshipping Christ absolutely. (Quat. xvi.): and such expressions as, [Greek] (Quat. XV. Conf. Harduin. Concil. I. 1414, 1442.) In drawing these subtle conclusions, Nestorius (Ep. ad Cyrillum Hard. Conc. I, 1281.) also made that distinction between the Son of David and God the Word, so often attacked by Cyril in this Commentary: "God the Word, he says, was not the Son of David;" and as Cyril would fairly judge of his doctrine by this letter addressed to himself, no wonder he attributes to him, both here and elsewhere, a conclusion which follows apparently so directly from these words. In his seventeenth quaternion occurs probably Nestorius' most exact; statement, and from it equally S. Cyril would draw this conclusion, [Greek].
44.[u] In these words S. Cyril most accurately sums up the Catholic doctrine of the inseparable union of the two natures in Christ; which union Nestorius denied, anathematizing all who said that the Emmanuel was very God, and teaching instead that the Emmanuel was God indwelling in our nature. Si quis Eum Qui est Emmanuel, Deum verum esse dixerit, et non potius nobiscum Deum; hoc est, inhabitasse earn quae secundum nosmet est naturam, per id quod unitus est nostrae, quam de Maria Virgine suscepit; anathema sit. (An. I. Hard. Con. I. 1298.) To which it might well be replied, that the Emmanuel is "God with us," God and man, not God in man. A similar doctrine is contained in his fifteenth quaternion, as quoted above.
45.[x] The most important passages in the above homily have been preserved by the Catenists, but with the connection and course of the argument more than once broken. They ascribe, however, to S. Cyril, two short passages at the end (cf. Mai, p. 146.) not belonging to the Commentary; and there are some slight verbal differences in the intervening extract. On the other hand, two passages, preserved by-Thomas Aquinas, are both contained in the Syriac.
Reference address : https://www.elpenor.org/cyril-alexandria/luke-commentary.asp?pg=28
