|
You say then that Christ was born a mere man. But certainly this was
asserted by that wicked heresy of Pelagius, as we clearly showed in the
first book; viz., that Christ was born a mere man. You add besides, that
Jesus Christ the Lord of all should be termed a form that received God
(Theodo'chos), i.e., not God, but the receiver of God, so that your view is
that He is to be honoured not for His own sake because He is God, but
because He receives God into Himself. But clearly this also was asserted by
that heresy of which I spoke before; viz., that Christ was not to be
worshipped for His own sake because He was God, but because owing to His
good and pious actions He won this; viz., to have God dwelling in Him. You
see then that you are belching out the poison of Pelagianism, and hissing
with the very spirit of Pelagianism. Whence it comes that you seem rather
to have been already judged, than to have now to undergo judgment, for
since your error is one and the same, you must be believed to fall under
the same condemnation: not to mention for the present that you compare the
Lord to a statue of the Emperor, and break out into such wicked and
blasphemous impieties that you seem in this madness of yours to surpass
even Pelagius himself, who surpassed almost every one else in impiety.
|
|