40. Also the power which He said He received after the resurrection, that He had before He received it, and before the resurrection. For He of Himself rebuked Satan, saying, Get thee behind Me, Satan [3087] ;' and to the disciples He gave the power against him, when on their return He said, I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven [3088] .' And again, that what He said that He had received, that He possessed before receiving it, appears from His driving away the demons, and from His unbinding what Satan had bound, as He did in the case of the daughter of Abraham; and from His remitting sins, saying to the paralytic, and to the woman who washed His feet, Thy sins be forgiven thee [3089] ;' and from His both raising the dead, and repairing the first nature of the blind, granting to him to see. And all this He did, not waiting till He should receive, but being possessed of power [3090] .' From all this it is plain that what He had as Word, that when He had become man and was risen again, He says that He received humanly [3091] ; that for His sake men might henceforward upon earth have power against demons, as having become partakers of a divine nature; and in heaven, as being delivered from corruption, might reign everlastingly. Thus we must acknowledge this once for all, that nothing which He says that He received, did He receive as not possessing before; for the Word, as being God, had them always; but in these passages He is said humanly to have received, that, whereas the flesh received in Him, henceforth from it the gift might abide [3092] surely for us. For what is said by Peter, receiving from God honour and glory, Angels being made subject unto Him [3093] ,' has this meaning. As He inquired humanly, and raised Lazarus divinely, so He received' is spoken of Him humanly, but the subjection of the Angels marks the Word's Godhead.
41. Cease then, O abhorred of God [3094] , and degrade not the Word; nor detract from His Godhead, which is the Father's [3095] , as though He needed or were ignorant; lest ye be casting your own arguments against the Christ, as the Jews who once stoned Him. For these belong not to the Word, as the Word; but are proper to men and, as when He spat, and stretched forth the hand, and called Lazarus, we did not say that the triumphs were human, though they were done through the body, but were God's, so, on the other hand, though human things are ascribed to the Saviour in the Gospel, let us, considering the nature of what is said and that they are foreign to God, not impute them to the Word's Godhead, but to His manhood. For though the Word became flesh,' yet to the flesh are the affections proper; and though the flesh is possessed by God in the Word, yet to the Word belong the grace and the power. He did then the Father's works through the flesh; and as truly contrariwise were the affections of the flesh displayed in Him; for instance, He inquired and He raised Lazarus, He chid [3096] His Mother, saying, My hour is not yet come,' and then at once He made the water wine. For He was Very God in the flesh, and He was true flesh in the Word. Therefore from His works He revealed both Himself as Son of God, and His own Father, and from the affections of the flesh He shewed that He bore a true body, and that it was His own.
[3059] John iii. 35; Matt. xi. 27; John v. 30
[3060] John xvi. 15; xvii. 10.
[3061] John x. 18; Mat. xxviii. 18.
[3062] Or. i. 45; ad Adelph. 4.
[3063] Or. ii. 19, n. 3.
[3064] Heb. i. 2.
[3065] John v. 26.
[3066] Or. ii. 55, n. 8.
[3067] 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 itself 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.
[3068] §§11, n. 4, 15, n. 11.
[3069] Vid. infr. 46; John xi. 34.
[3070] Matt. xvi. 13; Mark vi. 38; Matt. xx. 32
[3071] ii. 44, n. 1.
[3072] John vi. 6.
[3073] 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.
[3074] John xi. 14.
[3075] John ii. 25; xiv. 11.
[3076] Or. ii. 8, n. 3.
[3077] Or. ii. 68.
[3078] ii. 69, n. 3.
[3079] idiopoieitai, cf. 33, n. 5.
[3080] Infr. 51.
[3081] Or. i. 38.
[3082] Redemption an internal work. vid. supr. ii. 55, n. 1.
[3083] Luke x. 22.
[3084] 1 Cor. viii. 6.
[3085] 1 Cor. ii. 8.
[3086] Joh. xvii. 5.
[3087] Luke iv. 8.
[3088] Luke x. 18, 19.
[3089] Vid. ib. xiii. 16; Matt. ix. 5; Luke vii. 48.
[3090] Is. ix. 6, LXX.
[3091] Or. i. 45.
[3092] diameine, Or. ii. 69, 3.
[3093] 2 Pet. i. 17; 1 Pet. iii. 22.
[3094] theostugeis, supr. §16, n. 7. infr. §58, de Mort. Ar. 1. In illud Omn. 6.
[3095] §1, n. 11.
[3096] John ii. 4. epeplette; and so epetimese, Chrysost. in loc. Joan. and Theophyl. hos despotes epitima, Theodor. Eran. ii. p. 106. entrepei, Anon. ap. Corder. Cat. in loc. memphetai, Alter Anon. ibid. epitima ouk atimazon alla diorthoumenos, Euthym. in loc. ouk epeplexen, Pseudo-Justin. Quæst. 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. Hær. iii. 16, n. 7. It is observable that epiplettei 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.
Chapter XXVIII.--Texts Explained; Eleventhly, Mark xiii. 32 and Luke ii. 52 Arian explanation of the former text is against the Regula Fidei; and against the context. Our Lord said He was ignorant of the Day, by reason of His human nature. If the Holy Spirit knows the Day, therefore the Son knows; if the Son knows the Father, therefore He knows the Day; if He has all that is the Father's, therefore knowledge of the Day; if in the Father, He knows the Day in the Father; if He created and upholds all things, He knows when they will cease to be. He knows not as Man, argued from Matt. xxiv. 42. As He asked about Lazarus's grave, &c., yet knew, so He knows; as S. Paul says, whether in the body I know not,' &c., yet knew, so He knows. He said He knew not for our profit, that we be not curious (as in Acts i. 7, where on the contrary He did not say He knew not). As the Almighty asks of Adam and of Cain, yet knew, so the Son knows[as God]. Again, He advanced in wisdom also as man, else He made Angels perfect before Himself. He advanced, in that the Godhead was manifested in Him more fully as time went on.
42. These things being so, come let us now examine into But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, neither the Angels of God, nor the Son [3097] ;' for being in great ignorance as regards these words, and being stupefied [3098] about them, they think they have in them an important argument for their heresy. But I, when the heretics allege it and prepare themselves with it, see in them the giants [3099] again fighting against God. For the Lord of heaven and earth, by whom all things were made, has to litigate before them about day and hour; and the Word who knows all things is accused by them of ignorance about a day; and the Son who knows the Father is said to be ignorant of an hour of a day; now what can be spoken more contrary to sense, or what madness can be likened to this? Through the Word all things have been made, times and seasons and night and day and the whole creation; and is the Framer of all said to be ignorant of His work? And the very context of the lection shews that the Son of God knows that hour and that day, though the Arians fall headlong in their ignorance. For after saying, nor the Son,' He relates to the disciples what precedes the day, saying, This and that shall be, and then the end.' But He who speaks of what precedes the day, knows certainly the day also, which shall be manifested subsequently to the things foretold. But if He had not known the hour, He had not signified the events before it, as not knowing when it should be. And as any one, who, by way of pointing out a house or city to those who were ignorant of it, gave an account of what comes before the house or city, and having described all, said, Then immediately comes the city or the house,' would know of course where the house or the city was (for had he not known, he had not described what comes before lest from ignorance he should throw his hearers far out of the way, or in speaking he should unawares go beyond the object), so the Lord saying what precedes that day and that hour, knows exactly, nor is ignorant, when the hour and the day are at hand.
43. Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell His disciples plainly at that time, no one may be curious [3100] where He has been silent; for Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor [3101] ?' but why, though He knew, He said, no, not the Son knows,' this I think none of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations as man by reason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word's deficiency [3102] , but of that human nature [3103] whose property it is to be ignorant. And this again will be well seen by honestly examining into the occasion, when and to whom the Saviour spoke thus. Not then when the heaven was made by Him, nor when He was with the Father Himself, the Word disposing all things [3104] ,' nor before He became man did He say it, but when the Word became flesh [3105] .' On this account it is reasonable to ascribe to His manhood everything which, after He became man, He speaks humanly. For it is proper to the Word to know what was made, nor be ignorant either of the beginning or of the end of these (for the works are His), and He knows how many things He wrought, and the limit of their consistence. And knowing of each the beginning and the end, He knows surely the general and common end of all. Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, Father, the hour is come, glorify Thy Son [3106] ,' it is plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to man [3107] , and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Saviour's love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant [3108] , to say I know not,' that He may shew that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh [3109] . And therefore He said not, no, not the Son of God knows,' lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, no, not the Son,' that the ignorance might be the Son's as born from among men.