14 ovdey eBAdmreto. (x Pet, ii. 24.) Cf. de Incarn. 17, 54, 343 Euseb. de Laud. Const. p.536. and 538. also Dem. Lvang. vii. p- 348. Vigil. contr. Eutych. ii. p. 503. (B. P. ed. 1624.) Anast. Hodeg. c. 12. p. 220 (ed. 1606.) also p. 222. Vid. also the beautiful passage in Pseudo-Basil: Hom. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. (t. 2. p. 596. ed. Ben.) also Rufin. zz Symb. 12. Cyril. Quod unus est Christus. p.776. Damasc. /. O. iii. 6 fin, August. Sev. 7. p. 26 init. ed. 1842. Suppl. r. 15 waGOv, vid. § 33, n. 2.
t John x. 37, 38. vid. Zmcarvn. 18. Cf. Leo, Serm. 54, 2. ‘ Suscepit nos in suam proprietatem illa natura, que nec nostris sua, nec suis nostra consumeret, &c.’ Sev7. 72, p. 286, vid. also Ep. 165, 6. Sevnt. 30, 5. Cyril Cat. iv. 9. Amphiloch. ap. Theod. Evan. i. p. 66. also pp. 30, 87, 8. ed. 1644. ' 2 Cf. Leo’s Tome (2. 28.) 4.‘ When He touched the leper, it was the man that was seen; but something beyond man, when He cleansed him, &c.’ Ambros. Z7s¢.i. 46, n.7. Hil. 7727. x. 23 fin. vid. 7z/r. 56 note, and S, Leo’s extracts in his #%. 165. Chrysol. Serm. 34 and 35. Paul. ap. Conc. Eph. (p. 1620. Labbe.) These are instances of what is theologically called the Geavdpixn evépyera {a condemned formula], i.e. the union of the energies of both Natures in one act. (aa, 3 wh havracia dAN adnOds. vid. Incarn. 18, d. ad Efict. 7, c. The passage is quoted by S. Cyril. Afol. adv. Orient. p. 194.
Him alone, though they did not touch Him according to His Godhead. If then the body had been another’s, to him too had been the affections attributed; but if the flesh is the Word’s (for ‘the Word became flesh’), of necessity then the affections also of the flesh are ascribed to Him, whose the flesh is, And to whom the affections are ascribed, such namely as to be condemned, to be scourged, to thirst, and the cross, and death, and the other infirmities of the body, of Him too is the triumph and the grace. For this cause then, consistently and fittingly such affections are ascribed not to another4, but to the Lord; that the grace also may be from Him5, and that we may become, not worshippers of any other, but truly devout towards God, because we invoke no originate thing, no ordinary 6 man, but the natural and true Son from God, who has become man, yet is not the less Lord and God and Saviour.
33. Who will not admire this? or who will not agree that such a thing is truly divine? for if the works of the Word’s Godhead had not taken place through the body, man had not been deified; and again, had not the properties of the flesh been ascribed to the Word, man had not been thoroughly delivered from them!; but though they had ceased for a little while, as I said before, still sin had remained in him and corruption, as was the case with mankind before Him; and for this reason:—Many for instance have been made holy and clean from all sin; nay, Jeremiah was hallowed? even from the womb, and John, while yet in the womb, leapt for joy at the voice of Mary Bearer of God3; nevertheless ‘death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression 4;’ and thus man remained mortal and corruptible as before, liable to the affections proper to their nature. But now the Word having become man and having appropriated’ what 4 ob dAdov, GAAG TOD Kuptov: and so ovK éTépou Tivds, Incarn, 18; also Ovat. i. 45. supr. p. 244. and Orat. iv. 35. Cyril Thes, p. 197. and Anathem, rr. who defends the phrase against the Orientals. 5 Cf. Procl, ad Armen. p. 615, ed. 1630, 6 xowdv opposed to tdvov. vid. z#fr. § 51, Cyril LAZ. p. 23, e communem, Ambros. de Wid. i. 94.; 2 Vid. Jer. i. 5. And so S. Jerome, S, Leo, &c., as mentioned in Corn. a Lap. zz doc. S. Jerome implies a similar gift in the case of Asella, ad Marcell. (Ep. xxiv.2.) And so S. John Baptist, Maldon. 7 Luc.i. 16. It is remarkable that no ancient writer (unless indeed we except S. Austin), [Patrol. Lat. xlvii. 11447] refers to the instance of S. Mary;—perhaps from the circumstance of its not being mentioned in Scripture.
3 @cordxov. For instances of this word vid. Alexandr. £/. ad Alex.ap. Theodor. 7. Z.i. 4.p. 745+ (al. 20). Athan. (supra); Cyril. Cat. x. 19. Julian lmper. ap. Cyril c. /zd. viii. p. 262. Amphiloch. Orat. 4. p. 41. (if Amphil.) ed. 1644. Nyssen. £f. ad Eustath. p. 1093. Chrysost. apud. Suicer Syd. p. 240. Greg. Naz. Orat 29, 4 Hp. 181. p. 85, ed.Ben. Antiochus and Ammon. ap. Cyril. de Recta Fid. pp. 49, 50. Pseudo-Dion. contr. Samos. 5. Pseudo-Basil. Hom. t. 2. p. 600 ed. Ben, 4 Rom. v. 14.
5 idtorovoupevou. vid. also [Lucar. 8.] infr. § 38. ad Epict. 6, e. fragm. ex Euthym. (t. i. p. 1275. ed. Ben.) Cyril. in Joavn. p. 151, a.
pertains to the flesh, no longer do these things touch the body, because of the Word who has come in it, but they are destroyed® by Him, and henceforth men no longer remain sinners and dead according to their proper affections, but having risen according to the Word’s power, they abide? ever 1mmortal and incorruptible. Whence also, whereas the flesh is born of Mary Bearer of God®, He Himself is said to have been born, who furnishes to others an origin of being; in order that He may transfer our origin into Himself, and we may no longer, as mere earth, return to earth, but as being knit into the Word from heaven, may be carried to heaven by Him. Therefore in like manner not without reason has He transferred to Himself the other affections of the body also; that we, no longer as being men, but as proper to the Word, may have share in eternal life. For no longer according to our former origin in Adam do we die; but henceforward our origin and all infirmity of flesh being transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth, the curse from sin being removed, because of Him who is in us9, and who has become a curse for us. And with reason; for as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened; the flesh being no longer earthly, but being henceforth made Word?°, by reason of God’s Word who for our sake ‘ became flesh.’
34. And that one may attain to a more exact knowledge of the impassibility of the Word’s nature and of the infirmities ascribed to Him because of the flesh, it will be well to listen to the blessed Peter; for he will be a trustworthy witness concerning the Saviour. He writes then in his Epistle thus; ‘Christ then having suffered for us in the flesh*.’ Therefore also when He is said to hunger and For iScov, which occurs so frequently here, vid. Cyril. Anathem. 11. And oixetwrat. contr. Apoll. ii. 16, e. Cyril. Schol. de [ncarn. p. 782, d- Concil. ZZh. pp. 1644, d. 1697, b.( Hard.) Damasce. J. O. ili. 3. Pp. 208. ed. Ven. Vid. Petav. de [ncarn. iv. 15.
© Vid. Or. i. $§ 45, 46, ii. 65, note. Vid. also iv. 33. Zucarz. c. Arian. 12. contr. Afoll.\. 17.11. 6, ‘Since God the Word willed to annul the passions, whose end is death, and His deathless nature was not capable of them...Heis made flesh of the Virgin, in the way He knoweth, &c.’ Procl. ad Armen. p. 616. also Leo. Sernt. 22. pp. 69. 71. Sern. 26. p. 88. Nyssen contr. Apoll. t. 2 p. ect aes Epp. p. 138, 9. 7% Joan. p. 95. Chrysol. Sermz. 148.
8 GeoroKxov. supr. 14, n. 3. For ‘mater Dei’ vid. before S. Leo, Ambros. de Virg. ii. 7. Cassian. Iucarn. ii. 5. vii. 25. Vincent. Lir. Commonit. 21. It is obvious that @cordxos, though framed as a test against Nestorians, was equally effective against Apollinarians [?] and Eutychians, who denied that our Lord had taken human flesh at all, as is observed by Facundus Def. Trium. Cap. i. 4. _ Cf. Cyril. Zp. pp. 106, 7. Vet these sects, as the Arians, maintained the term. vid. swf. Or. ii. 8, n. 5.
10 AoywHetans THS GapKds. This strong term is here applied to human nature generally; Damascene speaks of the Adywous of the flesh, but he means especially our Lord’s flesh.. O. iv. 18. p. 236. (Ed. Ven.) for the words Gcotc@ar, &c. vid. supr. ii. 70, n, 1.
t x Pet. iv. 1.
thirst and to toil and not to know, and to sleep, and to weep, and to ask, and to flee, and to be born, and to deprecate the cup, and in a word to undergo all that belongs to the flesh2, let it be said, as is congruous, 1n each case, ‘Christ then hungering and thirsting “for us in the flesh;”?’ and ‘saying He did not know, and being buffeted, and toiling “for us in the flesh;”’ and ‘being exalted too, and born, and growing “in the flesh;”’ and ‘fearing and hiding “in the flesh;”’ and ‘saying, “Tf it be possible let this cup pass from Me3,” and being beaten, and receiving, “for us In the flesh;”’ and in a word all such things ‘for us in the flesh.’ For on this account has the Apostle himself said, ‘Christ then having suffered,’ not in His Godhead, but ‘for us in the flesh,’ that these affections may be acknowledged as, not proper to the very Word by nature, but proper by nature to the very flesh.
Let no one then stumble at what belongs to man, but rather let a man know that in nature the Word Himself is impassible, and yet because of that flesh which He put on, these things are ascribed to Him, since they are proper to the flesh, and the body itself is proper to the Saviour. And while He Himself, being impassible in nature, remains as He is, not harmed‘ by these affections, but rather obliterating and destroying them, men, their passions as if changed and abolished’ in the Impassible, henceforth become themselves also impassible and free® from them for ever, as John taught, saying, ‘And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him is no sin7.’. And this being so, no heretic shall object, ‘Wherefore rises the flesh, being by nature mortal? and if it rises, why not hunger too and thirst, and suffer, and remain mortal? for it came from the earth, and how can its natural condition pass from itr’ since the flesh is able now to make answer to this so contentious heretic, ‘I am from earth, being by nature mortal, but afterwards I have become the Word’s flesh, and He ‘carried’ my affections, though He is without them; and so I became free from them, being no more abandoned to their service because of the Lord who has made me free from them. For if you object to my being rid of that corruption which is by nature, see that you object not to God’s Word having taken my form 2 Cf. Chrysost. 7 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 77d. 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, 3 Mat. xxvi. 39.
6 Vid. Or ii. 56,n. 5. Cf. Cyril. de Rect.
7 x Johniii. 5.
of servitude; for as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh, and henceforward inherit life everlasting.’
35. These points we have found it necessary first to examine, that, when we see Him doing or saying aught divinely through the instrument* of His own body, we may know that He so works, being God, and also, if we see Him speaking or suffering humanly, we may not be ignorant that He bore flesh and became man, and hence He so acts and so speaks. For if we recognise what is proper to each, and see and understand that both these things and those are done by One?, we are right in our faith, and shall never stray. But if a man looking at what is done divinely by the Word, deny the body, or looking at what is proper to the body, deny the Word’s presence in the flesh, or from what is human entertain low thoughts concerning the Word, such a one, as a Jewish vintner3, mixing water with the wine, shall account the Cross an offence, or as a Gentile, will deem the preaching folly. This then is what happens to God’s enemies the Arians; for looking at what is human in the Saviour, they have judged Him a creature. Therefore they ought, looking also at the divine works of the Word, to deny* the origination of His body, and henceforth to rank themselves with Manichees5. But for them, learn they, however tardily, that ‘the Word became flesh;’ and let us, retaining the general scope® of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation?.
CHAPTER XXVII.
Texts EXPLAINED; TENTHLY, MATTHEW 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.
2 Vid. infr. 39—41. and 56, n. 7. Cf. Procl. ad Armen. p. 615. Leo’s Tome (£7. 28, 3) also Hil. Trix. ix. 11 fin. ‘ Vagit infans, sed in ccelo est, &c.’ ibid. x. 54. Ambros. de Hid. ii. 77. Erat vermis in cruce sed dimittebat peccata. Non habebat speciem, sed plenitudinem divinitatis, &c. Id. Hist. 1. 46, n. 5. Theoph. Ep. Pasch. 6. ap. Conc. Ephes. p. 1404. Hard.
3 Vid. Is. i. 22, LXX. 3 Or. il. 80; de Decr. 10..
4 Thus heresies are Jartial 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. 5 De Syn. 33; Or. i. 8.
thas all that the Father 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®;’ 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’,’ 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 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 2,’ 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 impair3 the Godhead of the Son, but rather shew Him to be truly + 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 alls,’ 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®’ 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 8 John iii. 35; Matt. xi. 27; John v. 30. i John xvi. 15; xvii. 10.
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, 1s 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 ‘so7,’ 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® 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? 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‘, or when He asks on coming into the parts of Cesarea, ‘Whom do men say that I am?’ or, ‘How many loaves have ye?’ and, ‘What will ye that I shall do unto you??’ we may know, from what has been already said, the right 3 OFAN SBe Ts Ce 8 mdduv. vid. Or. 1. 15, n. 6. Thus iteration is not duplication in respect to God; though ow 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 swfr. Or. ili. 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 wat 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. 7z 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. Ped. 2%. 3,18. Eulog. ad. Phot. 230. p. 864. August. 2 Joan. 39, 3 and 4; de Trin. vy. 10. ‘Unity is not number, but is itself the principle of all things.’ Ambros. de Zid. i.n,1g. ‘A trine numeration then does not make number, which they rather run into, who make some difference between the Three.’ Boeth. T7i7. wns Deus, p. 959. The last remark is found in Naz. Orat. 31,18. Many of these references are taken from Thomassin de Trin. 17. OSSar, m. 4, 15m, ore 1 Vid. znfr. 46; oka xi. 34.
2 Matt. xvi. 13; Mark vi. 38; Matt. xx. 32. 3 il. 44, ne we 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‘+.’ 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 5 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 1s dead 6,’ 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?.’
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!; 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.
4 John vi. 6.
5 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, OM 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?), but that the grace may be irrevocable, and may be kept sure3 by men, therefore He Himself appropriates‘ 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’, 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, than the body promoted because of Him. But this notion is Judaic. But if that He might redeem mankind3, the Word did corne among us; and that He might hallow and deify them, the Word became flesh (and for this He did become), who does not Se 2 Or. il. 68. 3 ii. 69, 0. 3 4 iSvorrovetrat, Cf. 33, Ts 5s 3 Redemption an zuternal work, vid. s#pr. ll. 55. Ds Fe 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+.’ 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 things5.’ 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 ®;’ for He had that glory which He asked when He said, ‘the glory which I had with Thee before the world was 7,’ 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‘;’ and to the disciples He gave the power against him, when on their return He said, ‘I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven?’ 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 3;’ 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+.’ 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 5; 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 © surely for us. For what is said by Peter, ‘ receiving from God honour and glory, Angels being made subject unto Him 7,’ 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®, and degrade not the Word; nor detract from His Godhead, which is the Father’s 9, 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?° 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, CHAPTER XXVIII.