Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Chapter III. Follows up the same argument with passages from the Old Testament.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter III.
Follows up the same argument with passages from the Old
Testament.
But as there is an
abundant supply of witnesses to the holy nativity; viz., all that has
been on this account written, to hear witness to it, let us examine in
some slight degree an announcement about God even in the Old Testament,
that you may know that the fact that the birth of God was to be from a
virgin was not only then announced when it actually came to pass, but
had been foretold from the very beginning of the world, that, as the
event to be brought about was ineffable, incredulity of the fact when
actually present might be removed by its having been previously
announced while still future. And so the prophet Isaiah says:
“Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with
us.”2396
What room is
there here for doubt, you incredulous person?2397
| 2397 Incredule
(Petschenig). Incredulæ (Gazæus). | The prophet said that a virgin should
conceive: a virgin has conceived: that a Son should be born: a
Son has been born: that He should be called God: He is called
God. For He is called by that name as being of that nature. Therefore
when the Spirit of God said that He should be called God, He proved
that He is without the Spirit of God who makes himself a stranger to
all fellowship with the Divine title. “Behold then,” he
says, “a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and they shall
call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted God with us.” But
here is a point on which it is possible that your shuffling incredulity
may fasten; viz., by saying that this which the prophet declared He
should be called referred not to the glory of His Divinity, but to the
name by which He should be addressed. But what are we to do because
Christ is never spoken of by this name in the gospels, though the
Spirit of God cannot be said to have spoken falsely through the
prophet? How is it then? Surely that we should understand that that
prophecy then foretold the name of His Divine nature and not of His
humanity. For since in His manhood united to the Godhead2398
| 2398 Here is an
instance of language which the mature judgment of the Church has
rejected, as experience showed how it was capable of being pressed into
the service of heresy. Homo unitus Deo, in Cassian’s
mouth evidently means the manhood joined to the Godhead, but the
words might easily be taken as implying that a man was united to
God, i.e., that there were in the Incarnation two persons, one assuming
and the other assumed, which was the essence of Nestorianism. Compare
above, the note on Homo to Book I. c. v. | He received another name
in the gospel, it is
certainly clear that this name belonged to His humanity,
that to His Divinity. But let us proceed further and summon
other true witnesses to establish the truth: For where we are speaking
about the Godhead, the Divinity cannot be better established than by
His own witnesses. So then the same prophet says elsewhere: “For
unto us a Son is born: unto us a child is given; and the government
shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called the angel of
great counsel, God the mighty, the Father of the world to come, the
Prince of peace.”2399
| 2399 Isa. ix. 6 where in the LXX. B reads ὅτι
παιδίον
ἑγεννήθη
ἡμῖν, ὑιὸς
καὶ ἐδόθη
ἡμῖν, οὗ ἡ
ἀρχὴ ἐγενήθη
ἐπὶ τοὺ ὤμου
αὐτοῦ, καὶ
καλεῖται τὸ
ὄνομα αῦτοῦ
Μεγάλης
Βουλῆς
ἄγγελος ἄζω
γὰρ κ.τ.λ. To this, however,
א and A add after
ἄγγελος,
θαυμαστὸς
σύμβουλος·
Θεὸς (our Θεὸς A) ἰσχυρὸς
ἐξουσιαστὴς
ἄρχων
εἰρήνης
πατὴρ τοῦ
μέλλοντος
αἱῶνος and hence in the main
comes the old Latin version, which Cassian here follows. Jerome’s
version has Parvulus enim natus est nobis et filius datus est nobis; et
factus est principatus super humerum ejus: et vocabitur nomen ejus
admirabilis consiliarius Deus fortis pater futuri sæculi princeps
pacis. The Hebrew has nothing directly corresponding to the
“angel of great counsel,” which seems to be intended as a
paraphrase of “Wonderful Counsellor” (cf. Judg. xiii. 18), while “Father of the world to
come” is an interpretation of the Hebrew “Father of
eternity.” | Just as above
the prophet had expressly said that He should be called Emmanuel, so
here he says that He should be called “the angel of great
counsel, and God the mighty, and the Father of the world to come and
the prince of peace” (although we certainly never read that He
was called by these names in the gospel): of course that we may
understand that these are not terms belonging to His human, but to His
Divine nature; and that the name used in the gospel belonged to the
manhood which He took upon Him,2400
| 2400 Suscepti
hominis. Cf. the line in the Te Deum, which originally ran
“Tu ad liberandum mundum suscepisti hominem: non horruisti
virginis uterum.” | and this one
to His innate power. And because God was to be born in human form,
these names were so distributed in the sacred economy, that to the
manhood a human name was given and to the Divinity a Divine one.
Therefore he says: “He shall be called the angel of great
counsel, God the mighty, the Father of the world to come, the prince of
peace.” Not, O heretic, whoever you may be, not that here the
prophet, full as he was of the Holy Spirit, followed your example and
compared Him who was born to a molten image and a figure fashioned
without sense.2401
| 2401 See the language of
Nestorius himself quoted below in Book VII. c. vi. and cf. V. iii. | For “a
Son,” he says, “is born to us, a Child is given to us; and
the government shall be upon his shoulder; and His name shall be called
the angel of great counsel, God the mighty.” And that you may not
imagine Him whom He announced as God2402
| 2402 The text of
Gazæus omits Deus. | to be other
than Him who was born in the flesh, he adds a term referring to His
birth, saying: “A child is born to us: a son is given to
us.” Do you see how many titles the prophet used to make clear
the reality of His birth in the body? for he called Him both Son and
child on purpose that the manner of the child which was born might be
more clearly shown by a name referring to His infancy; and the Holy
Spirit foreseeing without doubt this perversity of blasphemous
heretics, showed to the whole world that it was God who was born, by
the very terms and words used; that even if a heretic was determined to
utter blasphemy, he might not find any loophole for his blasphemy.
Therefore he says: “A Son is born to us; a child is given to us;
and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be
called the angel of great counsel, God the mighty, the Father of the
world to come, the prince of peace.” He teaches that this child
which was born is both prince of peace and Father of the world to come
and God the mighty. What room is there then for shuffling? This child
which is born cannot be severed from God who is born in Him, for he
called Him, whom he spoke of as born, Father of the world to come; Him
whom he called a child, he foretold as God the mighty. What is it, O
heretic? Whither will you betake yourself? Every place is hedged and
shut in: there is no possibility of getting out of it. There is nothing
for it but that you should at length be obliged to confess the mistake
which you would not understand. But not content with these
passages which are indeed enough let us inquire what the Holy Ghost
said through another prophet. “Shall a man,” says he,
“pierce his God, for you are piercing me?”2403
| 2403 Malachi iii. 8. Jerome’s rendering is almost
identical “Si affiget homo Deum, quia vos configitis me,”
where the Douay version strangely departs from the literal sense of the
word and renders vaguely “afflict.” It is clear however
that it was intended to be understood literally, as it is here taken by
Cassian as a direct prophecy of the Crucifixion. The LXX. has
πτερνιεῖ. The
Hebrew word, which is only found again in Prov. xxii. 23, appears to mean
“defraud.” | In order that the subject of the prophecy
might be still clearer the prophet foretells what he proclaimed of the
Lord’s passion as if from the mouth of Him of whom he was
speaking. “Shall a man pierce his God, for you are piercing
me?” Does not our Lord God, I ask, seem to have said this when He
was led to the Cross? Why indeed do you not acknowledge Me as your
Redeemer? Why are ye ignorant of God clothed in flesh for you? Are
you
preparing death for your
Saviour? Are yon leading forth to death the Author of life? I am your
God whom ye are lifting up: your God whom ye are crucifying. What
mistake, I ask, is here or what madness is it? “Shall a man
pierce his God, for you are piercing me?” Do you see how exactly
the words describe what was actually done? Could you ask for anything
more express or clearer? Do you see how sacred testimonies follow our
Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ from the very cradle to the Cross which He
bore, as here you can see that He whom elsewhere you read of as God
when born in the flesh was God when pierced on the cross? And so there,
where His birth was treated of, He is spoken of by the prophet as God:
and here where His crucifixion is concerned, He is most clearly named
God; that the taking upon Him of manhood might not in any point
prejudice dignity of His Divinity, nor the humiliation of His body and
the shame of the passion affect the glory of His majesty; for His
condescension to so lowly a birth and His generous goodness in enduring
his passion ought to increase our love and devotion to Him; since it is
certainly a great and monstrous sin if, the more He lavishes love upon
us, the less He is honoured by us.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
