263 blaptomenoj, §31, n. 15.

264 Cf. 33, n. 6.

265 Vid. Or ii. 56, n. 5. Cf. Cyril. de Rect. Fid. p. 18.

266 1 John iii. 5.

267 Cf. 31, n. 10.

268 Vid. infr. 39-41. and 56, n. 7. Cf. Procl. ad Armen. p. 615. Leo's Tome (Ep. 28, 3) also Hil. Trin. ix. 11 fin. `Vagit infans, sed in coelo est, &c.' ibid x. 54. Ambros. de Fid. ii. 77. Erat vermis in cruce sed dimittebat peccata. Non habebat speciem, sed plenitudinem divinitatis, &c. Id. Epist. i. 46, n. 5. Theoph. Ep. Pasch. 6. ap. Conc. Ephes. p. 1404. Hard.

269 Vid. Is. i. 22, LXX.; Or. ii. 80; de Decr. 10.

270 Thus heresies are partial views of the truth, starting from some truth which they exaggerate, and disowning and protesting against other truth, which they fancy inconsistent with it. vid. supr. Or. i. 26, n. 2.

271 De Syn. 33; Or. i. 8.

272 Cf. §28, n. 11.

273 Cf. §30, n. 7.

274 John iii. 35; Matt. xi. 27; John v. 30.

275 John xvi. 15; John xvii. 10.

276 John x. 18; Mat. xxviii. 18.

277 Or. i. 45; ad Adelph. 4

278 Or. ii. 19, n. 3.

279 Heb. i. 2.

280 John v. 26.

281 Or. ii. 55, n. 8.

282 palin. vid. Or. i. 15, n. 6. Thus iteration is not duplication in respect to God; though how this is, is the inscrutable Mystery of the Trinity in Unity. Nothing can be named which the Son is in Himself, as distinct from the Father; we are but told His relation towards the Father, and thus the sole meaning we are able to attach to Person is a relation of the Son towards the Father; and distinct from and beyond that relation, He is but the One God, who is also the Father. This sacred subject has been touched upon supr. Or. iii. 9, n. 8. In other words, there is an indestructible essential relation existing in the One Indivisible infinitely simple God, such as to constitute Him, viewed on each side of that relation (what in human language we call) Two (and in like manner Three), yet without the notion of number really coming in. When we speak of `Person,' we mean nothing more than the One God in substance, viewed relatively to Him the One God, as viewed in that Correlative which we therefore call another Person. These various statements are not here intended to explain, but to bring home to the mind what it is which faith receives. We say `Father, Son, and Spirit,' but when we would abstract a general idea of Them in order to number Them, our abstraction really does hardly more than carry us back to the One Substance. Such seems the meaning of such passages as Basil. Ep. 8, 2; de Sp. S. c. 18; Chrysost. in Joan. Hom. ii. 3 fin. `In respect of the Adorable and most Royal Trinity, `first' and `second' have no place; for the Godhead is higher than number and times.' Isid. Pel. Ep. 3, 18. Eulog. ap. Phot. 230. p. 864. August. in Joan. 39, 3 and 4; de Trin. v. 10. `Unity is not number, but is itselt the principle of all things.' Ambros. de Fid. i. n. 19. `A trine numeration then does not make number, which they rather run into, who make some difference between the Three.' Boeth. Trin. unus Deus, p. 959. The last remark is found in Naz. Orat. 31, 18. Many of these references are taken from Thomassin de Trin. 17.

283 §§11, n. 4, 15, n. 11.

284 Vid. infr. 46; John xi. 34.

285 Matt. xvi. 13; Mark vi. 38; Matt. xx. 32.

286 ii. 44, n. 1.

287 John vi. 6.

288 Petavius refers to this passage in proof that S. Athanasius did not in his real judgment consider our Lord ignorant, but went on to admit it in argument after having first given his own real opinion. vid. §45, n. 2.

289 John xi. 14.

290 John ii. 25; John xiv. 11.

291 Or. ii. 8, n. 3.

292 Or. ii. 68.

293 ii. 69, n. 3.

294 idiopoieitai, cf. 33, n. 5.

295 Infr. 51.

296 Or. i. 38.

297 Redemption an internal work. vid. supr. ii. 55, n. 1.

298 Luke x. 22.

299 1 Cor. viii. 6.

300 1 Cor. ii. 8.

301 Joh. xvii. 5.

302 Luke iv. 8.

303 Luke x. 18, Luke x. 19.

304 Vid. ib. xiii. 16; Matt. ix. 5; Luke vii. 48.

305 Is. ix. 6, LXX.

306 Or. i. 45.

307 diameinh, Or. ii. 69, 3.

308 2 Pet. i. 17; 1 Pet. iii. 22.

309 qeostugeij, supr. §16, n. 7. infr. §58, de Mort. Ar. 1. In illud Omn. 6.

310 §1, n. 11.

311 John ii. 4. epeplhtte; and so epetimhse, Chrysost. in loc. Joan. and Theophyl. wj despothj epitima, Theodor. Eran. ii. p. 106. entrepei, Anon. ap. Corder. Cat. in loc. memfetai, Alter Anon. ibid. epitima ouk atimazwn alla diorqoumenoj, Euthym. in loc. ouk epeplhcen, Pseudo-Justin. Quoest. ad Orthod. 136. It is remarkable that Athan. dwells on these words as implying our Lord's humanity (i.e. because Christ appeared to decline a miracle), when one reason assigned for them by the Fathers is that He wished, in the words ti moi kai soi, to remind S. Mary that He was the Son of God and must be `about His Father's business.' `Repeliens ejus intempestivam festinationem,' Iren. Hoer. iii. 16, n. 7. It is observable that epiplhttei and epitima are the words used by Cyril, &c. (infr. §54, note 4), for our Lord's treatment of His own sacred body. But they are very vague words, and have a strong meaning or not, as the case may be.

312 Mark xiii. 32. S. Basil takes the words oud' o uioj, ei mh o pathr, to mean, `nor does the Son know, except the Father knows,' or `nor would the Son but for, &c.' or `nor does the Son know, except as the Father knows.' `The cause of the Son's knowing is from the Father.' Ep. 236, 2. S. Gregory alludes to the same interpretation, oud' o uioj h wj oti o pathr. `Since the Father knows, therefore the Son.' Naz. Orat. 30, 16. S. Irenaeus seems to adopt the same when he says, `The Son was not ashamed to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father;' Hoer. ii. 28, n. 6. as Naz, supr. uses the words epi thn aitian anaferesqw. And so Photius distinctly, eij arxhn anaferetai. `Not the Son, but the Father, that is, whence knowledge comes to the Son as from a fountain.' Epp. p. 342. ed. 1651.

313 skotodiniwntej, de Decr. §18 init.; Or. ii. 40, n. 5.

314 gigantaj qeomaxountaj, ii. 32, n. 4.

315 Cf. §18, n. 3.

316 Rom. xi. 34.

317 Or. i. 45.

318 Cf. ii. 45, n. 2.

319 Prov. viii. 27, LXX.

320 John i. 14.

321 Ib. xvii. 1.

322 Though our Lord, as having two natures, had a human as well as a divine knowledge, and though that human knowledge was not only limited because human, but liable to ignorance in matters in which greater knowledge was possible; yet it is the doctrine of the [later] Church, that in fact He was not ignorant even in His human nature, according to its capacity, since it was from the first taken out of its original and natural condition, and `deified' by its union with the Word. As then (supr. ii. 45, note 1) His manhood was created, yet He may not be called a creature even in His manhood, and as (supr. ii. 14, note 5) His flesh was in its abstract nature a servant, yet He is not a servant in fact, even as regards the flesh; so, though He took on Him a soul which left to itself had been partially ignorant, as other human souls, yet as ever enjoying the beatific vision from its oneness with the Word, it never was ignorant really, but knew all things which human soul can know. vid. Eulog. ap. Phot. 230. p. 884. As Pope Gregory expresses it, `Novit in natura, non ex natura humanitatis.' Epp. x. 39. However, this view of the sacred subject was received by the Church only after S. Athanasius's day, and it cannot be denied that others of the most eminent Fathers seem to impute ignorance to our Lord as man, as Athan. in this passage. Of course it is not meant that our Lord's soul has the same perfect knowledge as He has as God. This was the assertion of a General of the Hermits of S. Austin at the time of the Council of Basel, when the proposition was formally condemned, animam Christi Deum videre tam clare et intense quam clare et intense Deus videt seipsum. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3. P. 42. Yet Fulgentius had said, `I think that in no respect was full knowledge of the Godhead wanting to that Soul, whose Person is one with the Word: whom Wisdom so assumed that it is itself that same Wisdom.' ad Ferrand. iii. p. 223. ed. 1639. Yet, ad Trasmund. i. 7. he speaks of ignorance attaching to our Lord's human nature.

323 Cf. §48.

324 And so Athan. ad Serap. ii. 9. S. Basil on the question being asked him by S. Amphilochius, says that he shall give him the answer he had `heard from a boy from the fathers,' but which was more fitted for pious Christians than for cavillers, and that is, that `our Lord says many things to men in His human aspect; as "Give me to drink," ...yet He who asked was not flesh without a soul, but Godhead using flesh which had one.' Ep. 236, 1. He goes on to suggest another explanation which has been mentioned §42, note 1. Cf. Cyril Trin. pp. 623, 4. vid. also Thes. p. 220. `As he submitted as man to hunger and thirst, so.... to be ignorant." p. 221. vid. also Greg. Naz. Orat. 30, 15. Theodoret expresses the same opinion very strongly, speaking of a gradual revelation to the manhood from the Godhead, but in an argument where it was to his point to do so; in Anath. 4. t. v. p. 23. ed. Schulze. Theodore of Mopsuestia also speaks of a revelation made by the Word. ap. Leont. c. Nest (Canis. i. p. 579.)

325 Or. i. 47; Serap. i. 20 fin.

326 Leporius, in his Retractation, which S. Augustine subscribed, writes, `That I may in this respect also leave nothing to be cause of suspicion to any one, I then said, nay I answered when it was put to me, that our Lord Jesus Christ was ignorant as He was man, (secundum hominem). But now not only do I not presume to say so, but I even anathematize my former opinion expressed on this point,' ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 210. A subdivision also of the Eutychians were called by the name of Agnoetae from their holding that our Lord was ignorant of the day of judgment. `They said,' says Leontius, `that He was ignorant of it, as we say that He underwent toil.' de Sect. 5. circ. fin. Felix of Urgela held the same doctrine according to Agobard's testimony, see §46, n. 2. Montfaucon observes on the text, that the assertion of our Lord's ignorance `seems to have been condemned in no one in ancient times, unless joined to other error.' And Petavius, after drawing out the authorities for and against it, says, `Of these two opinions, the latter, which is now received both by custom and by the agreement of divines, is deservedly preferred to the former. For it is more agreeable to Christ's dignity, and more befitting His character and office of Mediator and Head, that is, Fountain of all grace and wisdom, and moreover of Judge, who is concerned in knowing the time fixed for exercising that function. In consequence, the former opinion, though formerly it received the countenance of some men of high eminence, was afterwards marked as a heresy.' Incarn. xi. 1. §15.

327 Mat. xi. 27.

328 Or. ii. 41, iii. 9, 46.

329 John xvi. 15.

330 Basil. Ep. 236, 1. Cyril. Thes. p. 220. Ambros. de fid. v. 197. Hence the force of the word `living' commonly joined to such words as eikwn, sfragij, boulh, energeia, when speaking of our Lord, e.g. Naz. Orat. 30, 20, c. Vid. §63, fin. note.

331 Or. i. 50, n. 7.

332 It is a question to be decided, whether our Lord speaks of actual ignorance in His human Mind, or of the natural ignorance of that Mind considered as human; ignorance in or ex natura; or, which comes to the same thing, whether He spoke of a real ignorance, or of an economical or professed ignorance, in a certain view of His incarnation or office, as when He asked, `How many loaves have ye?' when `He Himself knew what He would do,' or as He is called sin, though sinless. Thus it has been noticed, supr. ii. 55, n. 7, that Ath. seems to make His infirmities altogether only imputative, not real, as if shewing that the subject had not in his day been thoroughly worked out. In like manner S. Hilary, who, if the passage be genuine, states so clearly our Lord's ignorance, de Trin. ix. fin. yet, as Petavius observes, seems elsewhere to deny to Him those very affections of the flesh to which he has there paralleled it. And this view of Athan.'s meaning is favoured by the turn of his expressions. He says such a defect belongs to `that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant;' §43. that `since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant, to say, "I know not;"' ibid. and, as here, that `as shewing His manhood, in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on a flesh that was ignorant, being in which, He said according to the flesh, "I know not;"' `that He might shew that as man He knows not;' §46. that `as man' (i.e. on the ground of being man, not in the capacity of man), `He knows not;' ibid. and that, `He asks about Lazarus humanly,' even when `He was on His way to raise him,' which implied surely knowledge in His human nature. The reference to the parallel of S. Paul's professed ignorance when he really knew, §47. leads us to the same suspicion. And so `for our profit as I think, did He this.' §§48-50. The natural want of precision on such questions in the early ages was shewn or fostered by such words as oikonomikwj, which, in respect of this very text, is used by S. Basil to denote both our Lord's Incarnation, Ep. 236, 1 fin. and His gracious accommodation of Himself and His truth, Ep. 8, 6. and with the like variety of meaning, with reference to the same text, by Cyril. Trin. p. 623. and Thesaur. p. 224. (And the word dispensatio in like manner, Ben. note on Hil. x. 8.) In the latter Ep. S. Basil suggests that our Lord `economizes by a reigned ignorance.' §6. And S. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 224. And even in de Trin. vi. he seems to recognise the distinction laid down just now between the natural and actual state of our Lord's humanity; and so Hilary, Trin. ix. 62. And he gives reasons why He professed ignorance, n. 67. viz. as S. Austin words it, Christum se dixisse nescientem, in quo alios facit occultando nescientes. Ep. 180, 3. S. Austin follows him, saying, Hoc nescit quod nescienter facit. Trin. i. 23. Pope Gregory says that the text `is most certainly to be referred to the Son not as He is Head, but as to His body which we are.' Ep x. 39. And S. Ambrose de fid. v. 222. And so Caesarius, Qu. 20. and Photius Epp. p. 366. Chrysost. in Matt. Hom. 77, 3. Theodoret, however, but in controversy, is very severe on the principle of Economy. `If He knew the day, and wishing to conceal it, said He was ignorant, see what a blasphemy is the result. Truth tells an untruth.' l. c, pp. 23, 4.

333 §48.

334 Matt. xxiv. 42, Matt. xxiv. 44.

335 Matt. xxiv. 39.

336 Gen. vii. 1.

337 Matt. xxv. 13.

338 The mode in which Athan. here expresses himself, is as if he did not ascribe ignorance literally, but apparent ignorance, to our Lord's soul, vid. supr. 45. n. 2; not certainly in the broad sense in which heretics have done so. As Leontius, e.g. reports of Theodore of Mopsuestia, that he considered Christ `to be ignorant so far, as not to know, when He was tempted, who tempted Him;' contr. Nest. iii. (Canis. t. i. p. 579.) and Agobard of Felix the Adoptionist that he held `Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh truly to have been ignorant of the sepulchre of Lazarus, when He said to his sisters, `Where have ye laid him?' and was truly ignorant of the day of judgment; and was truly ignorant what the two disciples were saying, as they walked by the way, of what had been done at Jerusalem; and was truly ignorant whether He was more loved by Peter than by the other disciples, when He said, `Simon Peter, Lovest thou Me more than these?' B. P. t. 9. p. 1177. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.]

339 Eph. v. 14.

340 §37.

341 Cf. 44, n. 4.

342 Luke x. 22.