42. The Catenist in Mai has inserted in a parenthesis a curious observation, namely, that by the σφαιρωτήρ is meant "the tip of the shoe, ending in a point, such as the barbarians wear." The word, however, used by the Evangelist is ἱμάς simply a "thong:" and there can be no doubt that in the Septuagint, whence Cyril's word is taken, Gen. xiv. 23, the right reading is σφυρωτήρ , "a thong for the ankles," whereas σφαιρωτήρ , from σφαῖρα , "a ball," is the word for the pomegranates, used in the adorning of the golden candlestick. (Ex. xxv.31.)
43. In the above defence of catholic doctrine against the heresies of Nestorius, S. Cyril must be taken as meaning, that the natural result of Nestorius' teaching is to divide the one Christ into two sons, and not that he expressly so taught. For in his seventeenth quaternion he says, "God the Word, even before the incarnation, was Son, and God, and coexistent with the Father: but in these last times assumed the form of the slave. But while, before He was Son, and so called; after the assumption of the flesh, He cannot be called Son separately, lest we should infer two Sons." The doctrine of Nestorius, as briefly sketched by the Council of Ephesus, was, that "He Who for our sakes became man, must not be called God." Hence his objection to the title θεοτόκος applied to the Virgin, and so valued by the fathers as expressing the inseparable union of the Divine and human natures in the one person of Christ. Hence his protest against worshipping Christ absolutely . (Quat. xvi.): and such expressions as, [Greek] (Quat. XV. Conf. Harduin. Concil. I. 1414, 1442.) In drawing these subtle conclusions, Nestorius (Ep. ad Cyrillum Hard. Conc. I, 1281.) also made that distinction between the Son of David and God the Word, so often attacked by Cyril in this Commentary: "God the Word, he says, was not the Son of David;" and as Cyril would fairly judge of his doctrine by this letter addressed to himself, no wonder he attributes to him, both here and elsewhere, a conclusion which follows apparently so directly from these words. In his seventeenth quaternion occurs probably Nestorius' most exact; statement, and from it equally S. Cyril would draw this conclusion, [Greek].
44. In these words S. Cyril most accurately sums up the Catholic doctrine of the inseparable union of the two natures in Christ; which union Nestorius denied, anathematizing all who said that the Emmanuel was very God, and teaching instead that the Emmanuel was God indwelling in our nature. Si quis Eum Qui est Emmanuel, Deum verum esse dixerit, et non potius nobiscum Deum; hoc est, inhabitasse earn quae secundum nosmet est naturam, per id quod unitus est nostrae, quam de Maria Virgine suscepit; anathema sit. (An. I. Hard. Con. I. 1298.) To which it might well be replied, that the Emmanuel is "God with us," God and man, not God in man. A similar doctrine is contained in his fifteenth quaternion, as quoted above.
45. The most important passages in the above homily have been preserved by the Catenists, but with the connection and course of the argument more than once broken. They ascribe, however, to S. Cyril, two short passages at the end (cf. Mai, p. 146.) not belonging to the Commentary; and there are some slight verbal differences in the intervening extract. On the other hand, two passages, preserved by-Thomas Aquinas, are both contained in the Syriac.
46. It is to be observed, that S. Cyril often omits several verses in his Commentary. In one of Mai's MSS. some one has written the following anonymous note upon the omission here of vv. 18-20.: ὁ μακάριος Κύριλλος τοῦ Ἡρώδου ἐν τῇ ἑμηνείᾳ οὐκ ἐπεμνήσθη : and proceeds to give a reason for it.
47. By [Syriac] I imagine the translator means Nestorius' favourite word συνάφεια , as he uses it for instance in his xviith quaternion: "Therefore is it, with respect, namely, to the dignity of the Sonship, that God the Word is also called Christ, inasmuch as He has a perpetual conjunction with the Christ."----Hard. Con. I. 1414. Conf. also note in page 41.
48. This refers to the doctrine of Nestorius, that He Who was baptized was the man Christ, regarded in His human nature, and distinguished from God the Word.
49. Economy.
50. As frequently is the case, the short extracts in Mai at the end are not found in the Syriac, probably either from being taken from S. Cyril's other works, or erroneously ascribed to him. The first (from B.) contradicts the doctrine maintained throughout this Commentary, viz. that our Lord submitted to baptism as the pattern and type of humanity, and refers His baptism to His human nature. But Christ's human nature needed no baptism, as having no stain of sin. The second (from E. and F.) is a refutation of Paul of Samosata, drawn from the Evangelist's words, that "Jesus was be-ginning to be about thirty years old," and shewing that though He had a beginning as man, as God He had no beginning. And the last is a reproof addressed to those who justified the delay of holy baptism by our Lord's example, and which being referred to S. Cyril by four MSS. (A. E. F. H.), as well as for its own sake, I append entire; 'Thus great and beyond expectation is the harm that is done by deferring the grace that is by baptism for a long and unseasonable time: chiefly because no one can look forward with certainty to the accomplishment of his plans, and also because, though his purpose arrive at its fulfilment, he is sanctified indeed, but receives only the forgiveness of his past transgressions, while his talent he brings back to his Lord bare, having had no time to gain by trading any thing to add thereunto.'
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2006. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using unicode .