|
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 47
And next, let those who hold a contrary opinion be the speakers.[15] 'If, they say, there are two Sons, one specially of the seed of David, and the other again separately the Word of God the Father; must not the Word of God the Father be superior in nature to him of the seed of David? What, then, shall we do in seeing the two birds, not distinct in nature from one another, but, on the contrary, of the same kind, and in no point, as regards specific difference, unlike one another.' But they gain nothing by their argument; for great is the distance between the Godhead and the manhood: and in the explanation of examples, we are to understand them according to their fitting analogy; for they fall short of the truth, and often effect but a partial demonstration of the things signified by them. We say, moreover, that the law was a sort of shadow and type, and a painting, as it were, setting things forth before the view of the spectators: but in the pictorial art, the shadows are the foundations for the colours; and when the bright hues of the colours have been laid upon them, then at length the beauty of the painting will flash forth. And in like manner, since it was fitting for the law of Moses to delineate clearly the mystery of Christ, it does not manifest Him as both dying and at the same time living in one and the same bird, lest what was done should have the look of a theatrical juggle; but it contained Him, as suffering slaughter in the one bird, and in the other displayed the same Christ as alive and set free.
But I will endeavour to shew that my argument here does not go beyond the bounds of probability by means of another history. For were any one of our community to wish to see the history of Abraham depicted as in a painting, how would the artist represent him? as doing every thing at once? or as in turn, and variously acting in many different modes, though all the while the same one person? I mean, for instance, as at one time sitting upon the ass with the lad accompanying him, and the servants following behind: then again the ass left with the servants, Isaac laden with the wood, and himself carrying in his hands the knife and the fire: then in another compartment, the same Abraham in a very different attitude, with the lad bound upon the wood, and his right hand armed with the knife ready to strike the blow. Yet it would not be a different Abraham in each place, though represented in very many different forms in the painting, but one and the same everywhere, the painter's art conforming itself constantly to the requirements of the things to be represented. For it would be impossible in one representation to see him performing all the above-mentioned acts. So therefore the law was a painting and type of things travelling with truth, and therefore even though there were two birds, yet was He Who was represented in both but One, as suffering and free from suffering, as dying and superior to death, and mounting up unto heaven as a sort of second first fruits of human nature renewed unto incorruption. For He has made a new pathway for us unto that which is above, and we in due time shall follow Him. That the one bird then was slain, and that the other was baptized indeed in its blood, while itself exempt from slaughter, typified what was really to happen. For Christ died in our stead, and we, who have been baptized into His death, He has saved by His own blood.
5:17. And He Himself was teaching, and the Pharisees were sitting.
Around Him verily was a company of the envious, scribes, that is, and pharisees, who were spectators of His wonderful works, and listened as He taught: "and the power of God was present, it says, to heal him." Is this spoken as though God gave Him the ability to perform the miracles? Did He borrow of another the power? But who would venture to affirm this? Rather it was He Himself, working by His own power, as God and Lord, and not as partaker of some divine grace. For men indeed often, even after being counted worthy of spiritual gifts, yet sometimes occasionally prove infirm, according to the proportion known to Him Who distributes these divine graces. But in the case of the Saviour of us all, there was nought such as this; but His power to heal him was not a human power, but rather one divine and irresistible: for He was God and the Son of God.
[From Cod. D.] Christ alone teaches as being the (true) teacher, and the wisdom of the Father. For all the rest teach as receiving from Him. "And there was also, it says, the power of the Lord upon Him to heal all;" which means that His power to heal was not human, but divine and irresistible. For the rest of the saints at one time receive the power to work cures, and at another time, not: but Jesus, as being God, and the power of the Father, ever healed all.[16]
15.[z] The Monophysites, whose doctrines Eutyches subsequently pushed to an extreme.
16.[a] This passage being evidently collected out of the preceding, shews that the writers of the smaller Catenae rather gave an epitome in their own words than an exact transcript of the Fathers. It changes the difficult reading of the old MSS. αὐτὸν into πάντας.
Reference address : https://www.elpenor.org/cyril-alexandria/luke-commentary.asp?pg=47
