[3043] ii. 59. n. 5.
[3044] logotheises tes sarkos. This strong term is here applied to human nature generally; Damascene speaks of the logosis of the flesh, but he means especially our Lord's flesh. F. O. iv. 18. p. 286. (Ed. Ven.) for the words theousthai, &c. vid. supr. ii. 70, n. 1.
[3045] 1 Pet. iv. 1.
[3046] Cf. Chrysost. in Joann. Hom. 67. 1 and 2. Cyril de Rect. Fid. p. 18. As a man He doubts, as a man He is troubled; it is not His Power (virtus) that is troubled, not His Godhead, but His soul, &c.' Ambros. de Fid. ii. n. 56. vid. a beautiful passage in S. Basil's Hom. iv. 5. in which he insists on our Lord's having wept to shew us how to weep neither too much nor too little.
[3047] Mat. xxvi. 39.
[3048] blaptomenos, §31, n. 15.
[3049] Cf. 33, n. 6.
[3050] Vid. Or. ii. 56, n. 5. Cf. Cyril. de Rect. Fid. p. 18.
[3051] 1 John iii. 5.
[3052] Cf. 31, n. 10.
[3053] 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.
[3054] Vid. Is. i. 22, LXX.; Or. ii. 80; de Decr. 10.
[3055] 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.
[3056] De Syn. 33; Or. i. 8.
[3057] Cf. §28, n. 11.
[3058] Cf. §30, n. 7.
Chapter XXVII.--Texts Explained; Tenthly, Matthew xi. 27; John iii. 35, &c. These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son; they fall in with the Catholic doctrine concerning the Son; they are explained by so' in John v. 26. (Anticipation of the next chapter.) Again they are used with reference to our Lord's human nature; for our sake, that we might receive and not lose, as receiving in Him. And consistently with other parts of Scripture, which shew that He had the power, &c., before He received it. He was God and man, and His actions are often at once divine and human.
35 (continued). For, The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand;' and, All things were given unto Me of My Father;' and, I can do nothing of Myself, but as I hear, I judge [3059] ;' and the like passages do not shew that the Son once had not these prerogatives--(for had not He eternally what the Father has, who is the Only Word and Wisdom of the Father in essence, who also says, All that the Father hath are Mine [3060] ,' and what are Mine, are the Father's? for if the things of the Father are the Son's and the Father hath them ever, it is plain that what the Son hath, being the Father's, were ever in the Son),--not then because once He had them not, did He say this, but because, whereas the Son hath eternally what He hath, yet He hath them from the Father.
36. For lest a man, perceiving that the Son has all that the Father hath, from the exact likeness and identity of that He hath, should wander into the irreligion of Sabellius, considering Him to be the Father, therefore He has said Was given unto Me,' and I received,' and Were delivered to Me [3061] ,' only to shew that He is not the Father, but the Father's Word, and the Eternal Son, who because of His likeness to the Father, has eternally what He has from Him, and because He is the Son, has from the Father what He has eternally. Moreover that Was given' and Were delivered,' and the like, do not impair [3062] the Godhead of the Son, but rather shew Him to be truly [3063] Son, we may learn from the passages themselves. For if all things are delivered unto Him, first, He is other than that all which He has received; next, being Heir of all things, He alone is the Son and proper according to the Essence of the Father. For if He were one of all, then He were not heir of all [3064] ,' but every one had received according as the Father willed and gave. But now, as receiving all things, He is other than them all, and alone proper to the Father. Moreover that Was given' and Were delivered' do not shew that once He had them not, we may conclude from a similar passage, and in like manner concerning them all; for the Saviour Himself says, As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given also to the Son to have life in Himself [3065] .' Now from the words Hath given,' He signifies that He is not the Father; but in saying so,' He shews the Son's natural likeness and propriety towards the Father. If then once the Father had not, plainly the Son once had not; for as the Father, so' also the Son has. But if this is irreligious to say, and religious on the contrary to say that the Father had ever, is it not unseemly in them when the Son says that, as' the Father has, so' also the Son has, to say that He has not so [3066] ,' but otherwise? Rather then is the Word faithful, and all things which He says that He has received, He has always, yet has from the Father; and the Father indeed not from any, but the Son from the Father. For as in the instance of the radiance, if the radiance itself should say, All places the light hath given me to enlighten, and I do not enlighten from myself, but as the light wills,' yet, in saying this, it does not imply that it once had not, but it means, I am proper to the light, and all things of the light are mine;' so, and much more, must we understand in the instance of the Son. For the Father, having given all things to the Son, in the Son still [3067] hath all things; and the Son having, still the Father hath them; for the Son's Godhead is the Father's Godhead, and thus the Father in the Son exercises His Providence [3068] over all things.
37. And while such is the sense of expressions like these, those which speak humanly concerning the Saviour admit of a religious meaning also. For with this end have we examined them beforehand, that, if we should hear Him asking where Lazarus is laid [3069] , or when He asks on coming into the parts of Cæsarea, Whom do men say that I am?' or, How many loaves have ye?' and, What will ye that I shall do unto you [3070] ?' we may know, from what has been already said, the right [3071] sense of the passages, and may not stumble as Christ's enemies the Arians. First then we must put this question to the irreligious, why they consider Him ignorant? for one who asks, does not for certain ask from ignorance; but it is possible for one who knows, still to ask concerning what He knows. Thus John was aware that Christ, when asking, How many loaves have ye?' was not ignorant, for he says, And this He said to prove him, for He Himself knew what He would do [3072] .' But if He knew what He was doing, therefore not in ignorance, but with knowledge did He ask. From this instance we may understand similar ones; that, when the Lord asks, He does not ask in ignorance, where Lazarus lies, nor again, whom men do say that He is; but knowing the thing which He was asking, aware what He was about to do. And thus with ease is their clever point exploded; but if they still persist [3073] on account of His asking, then they must be told that in the Godhead indeed ignorance is not, but to the flesh ignorance is proper, as has been said. And that this is really so, observe how the Lord who inquired where Lazarus lay, Himself said, when He was not on the spot but a great way off, Lazarus is dead [3074] ,' and where he was dead; and how that He who is considered by them as ignorant, is He Himself who foreknew the reasonings of the disciples, and was aware of what was in the heart of each, and of what was in man,' and, what is greater, alone knows the Father and says, I in the Father and the Father in Me. [3075] '
38. Therefore this is plain to every one, that the flesh indeed is ignorant, but the Word Himself, considered as the Word, knows all things even before they come to be. For He did not, when He became man, cease to be God [3076] ; nor, whereas He is God does He shrink from what is man's; perish the thought; but rather, being God, He has taken to Him the flesh, and being in the flesh deifies the flesh. For as He asked questions in it, so also in it did He raise the dead; and He shewed to all that He who quickens the dead and recalls the soul, much more discerns the secret of all. And He knew where Lazarus lay, and yet He asked; for the All-holy Word of God, who endured all things for our sakes, did this, that so carrying our ignorance, He might vouchsafe to us the knowledge of His own only and true Father, and of Himself, sent because of us for the salvation of all, than which no grace could be greater. When then the Saviour uses the words which they allege in their defence, Power is given to Me,' and, Glorify Thy Son,' and Peter says, Power is given unto Him,' we understand all these passages in the same sense, that humanly because of the body He says all this. For though He had no need, nevertheless He is said to have received what He received humanly, that on the other hand, inasmuch as the Lord has received, and the grant is lodged with Him, the grace may remain sure. For while mere man receives, he is liable to lose again (as was shewn in the case of Adam, for he received and he lost [3077] ), but that the grace may be irrevocable, and may be kept sure [3078] by men, therefore He Himself appropriates [3079] the gift; and He says that He has received power, as man, which He ever had as God, and He says, Glorify Me,' who glorifies others, to shew that He hath a flesh which has need of these things. Wherefore, when the flesh receives, since that which receives is in Him, and by taking it He hath become man, therefore He is said Himself to have received.
39. If then (as has many times been said) the Word has not become man, then ascribe to the Word, as you would have it, to receive, and to need glory, and to be ignorant; but if He has become man (and He has become), and it is man's to receive, and to need, and to be ignorant, wherefore do we consider the Giver as receiver, and the Dispenser to others do we suspect to be in need, and divide the Word from the Father as imperfect and needy, while we strip human nature of grace? For if the Word Himself, considered as Word, has received and been glorified for His own sake, and if He according to His Godhead is He who is hallowed and has risen again, what hope is there for men? for they remain as they were, naked, and wretched, and dead, having no interest in the things given to the Son. Why too did the Word come among us, and become flesh? if that He might receive these things, which He says that He has received, He was without them before that, and of necessity will rather owe thanks Himself to the body [3080] , because, when He came into it, then He receives these things from the Father, which He had not before His descent into the flesh. For on this shewing He seems rather to be Himself promoted because of the body [3081] , than the body promoted because of Him. But this notion is Judaic. But if that He might redeem mankind [3082] , the Word did come among us; and that He might hallow and deify them, the Word became flesh (and for this He did become), who does not see that it follows, that what He says that He received, when He became flesh, that He mentions, not for His own sake, but for the flesh? for to it, in which He was speaking, pertained the gifts given through Him from the Father. But let us see what He asked, and what the things altogether were which He said that He had received, that in this way also they may be brought to feeling. He asked then glory, yet He had said, All things were delivered unto Me [3083] .' And after the resurrection, He says that He has received all power; but even before that He had said, All things were delivered unto Me,' He was Lord of all, for all things were made by Him;' and there is One Lord by whom are all things [3084] .' And when He asked glory, He was as He is, the Lord of glory; as Paul says, If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory [3085] ;' for He had that glory which He asked when He said, the glory which I had with Thee before the world was [3086] .'