« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
from raising any controversy about the reading, that they do not in the least correct him for it; but on the contrary they themselves, in their answers to his writings, read ő, as he did ; and only laboured by various disputations to put another sense upon the text, as I find by Cassian and Cyril, the two principal who at that time wrote against him.
VII. John Cassian was Chrysostom's scholar, and his deacon and legate to the Pope ; and after the banishment of Chrysostom, retired from Constantinople into Syria and Egypt, where he lived a monkish life for some time, and then ended his days in France. At that time, therefore, when Nestorius, who was patriarch of Constantinople, broached his opinion, and Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, opposed him ; Nestorius sent a legacy to Rome with copies of his orations, to let the Pope understand the controversy ; and thereupon Leo the Great, who was then archdeacon of the Church of Rome, and afterwards Pope, put Cassian, then in France, upon writing this book, De Incarnatione Domini, against Nestorius. He wrote it therefore, in the year 430, as Baronius also reckons. For he wrote it before the condemnation of Nestorius in the council of Ephesus, as appears by the book itself. This book is now extant only in Latin ; but, considering that his design in writing was to stir up the Greek church against Nestorius, and that for the making great impression upon them, he quotes Greek Fathers at the end of his book, and concludes with an exhortation to the citizens of Constantinople, telling them, that what he wrote he had received from his master Chrysostom ; I am satisfied that he wrote it originally in Greek. His other books were in both languages For Photius saw them in eloquent Greek; and it is more likely that they had their author's eloquent language from their author, and the Latin from one of the Latins where he lived ; than that the contrary should be true. Now in this treatise,* when he comes to consider the passage of Nestorius about this text, of which we gave you an account ve out of Arnobius, he returns this answer to it; Jam primum enim hoc quod ais, Nestori, quia justitiâ repleverit, quod creatum est ; et hoc apostolico vis testimonio comprobare, quod dicat, apparuit in carne; justificatus est in Spiritu; utrumque falso sensu et furioso Spiritu loqeris. Quia et hoc, quod a Spiritu vis eum repletum esse justitiâ, ideo ponis, ut ostendas ejus vacuitatem, cui præstitam esse asseras justitiæ adimpletionem. Et hoc, quod super hâc re apostolico testimonio uteris, divini testimonii ordinem rationemque furaris. Non enim ita ab apostolo positum est, ut tu id truncatum vitiatumque posuisti. Quid enim apostolus ait ? Et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in carne, justificatum est in Spiritu. Vides ergo, quod mysterium pietatis, vel sacramentum justificatum apos
tolus prædicavit. Thus far Cassian is not only reading, but confuting Nestorius by that reading. For whereas Nestorius said it was a creature which was justified, Cassian tells him, that if he had read the whole text, he would have found that it was "the mystery of godliness.” Vides ergo, saith he, quod mysterium pietatis justificatum apostolus prædicavit. He does not say, Deum justificatum apostolus prædicavit (as he certainly would have done, had that been in his Bible,) but mysterium; and so makes mysterium, or, which is all one, its relative quod, the nominative case to the verbs which follow. In another part of this treatise, lib. 5. cap. 12. Cassian cites and interprets the text as follows; Et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in carne, &c.
Quod ergo magnum est illud sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in carne ? Deus scilicet natus in carne, Deus visus in corpore, qui utique sicut palam est manifestatus in carne, ita palam est assumptus in gloriâ. So you see Nestorius and Cassian agree in reading o, but differ in interpreting it; the one restraining it to a creature, by reason of being justified; the other restraining it to G ason of its being a great mystery, and assi
cory. Cyril, the grand adversaee books De Fide ad Imfritten against him in the versy did not reprehend him, as if he had cited the text falsely, but only complained of his misinterpreting it; telling him, that he did not understand the great mystery of godliness, and that it was not a created thing, as he thought, but the Word or Son of God; and arguing for this interpretation from the circumstances of the text. And, first, in his book De Fide ad Imperatorem, sect. 7. he has this passage ; nacvãobe, meine Erdotes τας γραφάς: μήτε μέν το μέγα της ευσεβείας μυσήριον, τετέσι Χρισον, ός εφανερώθη εν σαρκί, εδικαιώθη εν πνεύματι, &c. Ye err, saith he, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the great mystery of godliness, that is Christ; who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit. By this citation it is plain that he read ós, using one of these MSS which, by understanding Xpısòv for posýpov, turned into os; and, by way of interpretation, inserting 78765, Xpisòv, which in those MSS was to be understood ; unless you will say that he turns Ords in ós, which is very hard. For had Odds been in this text, he would not have said μυσήριον, τ8τέςι Χρισον, ός εφανερώθη ; but μυσήριον, Θεός, τετέρι Χριςός εφανερώθη, putting Xpisòs, not for pusúosov, but for Oids. For Xposes, and Θεός are more plainly equipollent than Χρισός and μυσήριον. . And making Xposòs and pusýpkov equipollent, he makes uusiorov the nominative case to i uvepán; and therefore read them joined in this text by the article. Had he read sds, he would never have left out that the tic and demonstrative word, and by way of tation for μυσήριον Θεός
was not to argue against Nestorius, but to spoil the argument which lay before him. Neither would he have gone on, as he does, within a few lines, to recite the same text, putting róyos by way of interpretation for posnelov; and after to propound it as his bare opinion, that the Word or the Son of God was here to be understood by this mystery, and to dispute for this bis opinion, as needing proof out of other texts of scripture, as he does after this manner ;* Moreover, saith he, in my opinion, that mystery of godliness is nothing else than he who came to us from God the Father; the Word, who was manifested in the flesh. For in taking the form of a servant, he was born of the holy God-bearing Virgin, &c. And then after many other things he at length in sect. 23 and 24, concludes, that “this divine mystery is above our understanding; and that the onlybegotten, who is God, and, according to the Scriptures, the Lord of all things, appeared to us, was seen on earth, and became a man. This he makes not the text itself, but the interpretation thereof; and from the preceding disputation, concludes it to be genuine.
IX. Again, in the first of his two treatises, De Fide ad Reginas, near the end, he cites the text, and argues thus against the interpretation of Nesto
* "Ειη γαρ άν ουχ έτερον οίμαι τι το της ευσεβείας μυστήριον, και αυτός ημϊν ο εκ Θεού πατρός λόγος, ός εφανερώθη εν σαρκί. Γεγένηται γαρ διά της αγίας παρθένου και θεοτόκου, μορφήν δούλου λαβών. Cyril, de Fide ad Imperatorem, Sect. 8.