|
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." What room is there here for doubt, you
incredulous person? 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 Godhead
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." 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, 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 cat led 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. 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 God
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?" 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.
|
|