up stones to kill Him for blasphemy, in calling Himself the Son of God in the highest sense, there is no reason to explain it by any unique property of His body; it is enough to refer it to the Divine power,-such as baffled the efforts of the multitude who would have seized Lot and his Angelic guests in time of old. So also, when He was transfigured on Mount Tabor, it was an outward change to the eyes of the Disciples; His garments, as well as His body, appeared different; His face shone, like that of Moses, when He came down from Mount Sinai. Why suppose that this was constitutional? Is it proper, on the basis of facts, su explicable when referred to the class of the Miraculous, to build an hypothesis so perilous as the Archdeacon's?

"The spiritual immutability* which belonged to Him by nature, was a perpetual antidote to His body's death." (p. 95.)

XV.

* We think that there is an allusion here to the expression, a spiritual body," used by St. Paul, 1 Cor. That expression is a rich mine for mystical speculations, as we have before said. But all persons should remember, that it occurs but once in Scripture; and then only with reference to the future condition and character of our bodies, not the present.

We may also notice, that the Archdeacon calls the body of Christ, while yet alive, by the epithet "glorious," He has no authority to do this. The Romanists, in defence of Transubstantiation, appeal to 'the unknown properties' of a glorified body, such as Christ's now is. In an

Then perhaps He never really died! Would not the Archdeacon shrink from such a conclusion? Why risk its being drawn by others?*

16

"In Him the unlimited Presence of God's Spirit supplied the place of that Divine Guidance which had "been given to our first parent, and counteracted the con66 cupiscence, which had been transmitted to his

progeny." Then perhaps there was concupiscence in "the Holy Child Jesus," since it had to be "counteracted." The Archdeacon does not say, 'prevented the entrance of concupiscence,' but "counteracted it." If so, Mr. Irving was not so far wrong. For concupiscence, according to our Church, as we have before said, hath in itself the nature of sin." We do

swer to this attempt at mystifying us, it is enough to say, that our Lord's body was not a glorified body at the First Eucharist. More than was given then, is not pretended to be given now, in the Eucharist. So that all reference to the properties, whatever they be, of a glorified body is out of place. This argument is irrefragable,-provided we resist the Archdeacon's unwarrantable application of the epithet glorious' to our Lord's body during his lifetime.

* Mr. Newman, in his annotations to the Oxford Translation of Athanasius (which is frequently quoted by the Archdeacon) first started the question, "whether Christ's body was naturally subject to death." Bishop Kaye, in his posthumous Work on the "Council of Nicea and Athanasius" draws attention to this, and rebukes it as presumptuous. He finds occasion to do the same to many other annotations of Mr. Newman. Some he calls irreverent.

not accuse the Archdeacon of wilfully countenancing Mr. Irving's heresy, but we accuse him of speaking with great imprudence.

§ 6. THE CONSTITUTION OF OUR LORD'S HUMAN

MIND.

Let us now turn from what our Author says of the body of Christ, to what he says of His mind. Here we shall be brief, partly because we cannot at all understand him, and partly because our Lord's supposed mental constitution has less bearing on the real subject of the Archdeacon's Book, the Sacramental Theory, than His bodily one has.

The obscurity, in which the question, How could our Lord be said to (6 grow in knowledge," in other words, to be gradually freed from ignorance? is wrapped, appears impenetrable. At any rate, the Archdeacon does not dissipate the darkness. We have read the many pages he has devoted to the attempt, again and again, in the hope of understanding his meaning, but all in vain. We have known the same done by very distinguished divines, and his Book laid down in despair. We must leave it to our readers to make what they can of such a sentence as the following:

"By virtue of his Humanity, our Lord was not conversant "with that, which, as a matter of fact, was never hidden, even from His human mind." (p. 101.)

66

as

We like not the insertion of these words " a matter of fact." They seem to throw suspicion on the simple truthfulness of the Scripture statement. If Scripture says, that our Lord" increased in wisdom," i. e. that as his body increased He had less and less degrees of ignorance, then doubtless there were some things, at some times, which, as a matter of fact, He knew not. He kept His divine knowledge in abeyance. Let us believe, though we cannot explain. The difficulty of explaining, arises from Christ's human nature not constituting a distinct person. Some have thought that suffering does not necessarily constitute distinct personality, as acting does. Ignorance may, perhaps, be looked upon as a kind of suffering. We may refer our readers on this point to Mr. Tait's little book on the Lord's Prayer.

Bishop Kaye, in the Work, published since his death, on the "Council of Nicæa, and Athanasius," has some remarks in a note to the Third Oration of Athanasius against the Arians, of which it will be better to extract a portion, than to offer any observations of our

own, on this subject of our Lord's human ignorance. It will be seen that Mr. Newman who wrote the annotations to the Oxford Translation of Athanasius, used language very similar to the Archdeacon's. The learned Bishop says:

66

66

66

66

as man.....

"The Oxford Annotator here (ch. 44 of the Ora"tion) remarks, that 'the doctrine of the Church is, that "in fact Christ was not ignorant, even in His human nature This view of the subject was received by the "Church after St. Athanasius's day, and it cannot be denied, that he and others of the most eminent Fathers use language, which primâ facie is inconsistent with it.' What is here meant by prima facie I do not understand; "the language of Athanasius is as express as language can be. He asserts distinctly, that Christ was ignorant .. I would ask, when was the doctrine, put "forth by the Annotator (a doctrine not possessing the qualification, 'quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab "omnibus') received as the doctrine of the Church; and why was the clearly-exprest opinion of Athanasius, "and others of the most eminent Fathers, not only set aside, in order to make way for the opinion of later 66 Fathers, but even, according to Petavius, marked as 66 Heresy?... The Annotator, in a note on ch. 45, adds: "It is a question, whether Christ spoke of a real ignorance (when He said that the Son knew not of the day "and hour of judgment), or of an economical or professed "ignorance, in a certain view of His Incarnation or "office?' By whom can this question be answered excepting by Christ Himself; and is there no presumption "in raising it? . . . . Theodoret, as quoted by the Annotator, was far from approving of the principle of œco66 nomy: If He knew the day, and wishing to conceal "it, said He was ignorant, see what blasphemy is the re"sult: Truth tells an untruth.'" (Nicæa &c. p. 251, n.)

66

66

66