|
AND so following the guidance of the sacred word we may now say
fearlessly and unhesitatingly that the Son of man came down from heaven,
and that the Lord of Glory was crucified: because in virtue of the mystery
of the Incarnation, the Son of God became Son of man, and the Lord of Glory
was crucified in(the nature of) the Son of man. What more is there need
of? It would take too long to go into details: for time would fail me, were
I to try to examine and explain everything which could be brought to bear
on this subject. For one who wished to do this would have to study and read
the whole Bible. For what is there which does not bear on this, when all
Scripture was written with reference to this? We must then say--as far as
can be said--some things briefly and cursorily, and enumerate rather than
explain them, and sacrifice some to save the rest, as for this reason it
would certainly be well hurriedly to run through some points, lest one
should be obliged to pass over almost everything in silence. The Saviour
then in the gospel says that "the Son of man is come to save what was
lost." And the Apostle says: "This is a faithful saying and worthy of
all acceptation; that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of
whom I am chid." But the Evangelist John also says: "He came unto his
own, and His own received Him not." You see then that Scripture says in
one place that the Son of man, in another Jesus Christ, in another the Word
of God came into the world. And so we must hold that the difference is one
of title not of fact, and that under the appearance of different names
there is but one Power [or Person]. For though at one time we are told that
the Son of man, and at another that the Son of God came into the world, but
one Person is meant under both names.
|
|