The Second Genus of the Communication of Attributes
(genus maiestaticum). We saw in the presentation of the so-called first genus of the communication of attributes, how decidedly Nestorius, Zwingli and followers demanded that the human
ff.]
carnem meam induit, crucis patibulum ascendit et in carne assumta triste tulit supplicium. [Google attribute of suffering and dying be separated from the sons of God.. But the Reformed theologians, in particular, now demand that an insurmountable gulf be bridged between the divine attributes of the Son of God and his human nature, for the human nature of Christ is not capable of divine power, divine knowledge, etc., without being destroyed. In both cases the contradiction against the truth of Scripture appears as the savior of Orthodoxy. Nestorius, Zwingli and followers, by separating the suffering and dying from the Son of God, want to prevent the misfortune of God being transformed into a human being. By separating the divine attributes of the Son of God from his human nature, the Reformed theologians want to prevent the calamity of mankind being transformed into the Godhead. °° They want to attribute to the human nature of Christ, as a result of its association with the Son of God, extraordinary finite attributes (dona extraordinaria finita), that is, great power, great knowledge, but undisclosed divine power, divine knowledge, etc. In the latter case, human nature would certainly either be scattered to the four winds or transformed into the Godhead. The Reformed theologians also go into detail and present the Lutheran Church with a whole register of misfortunes which would necessarily occur if human nature were to participate not only in name but really and truly in divine power and other divine attributes, the whole life and suffering of Christ would be reduced to mere appearance and thus lose its character of satisfaction. And as Nestorius claimed that he could not worship a God born of woman, crucified, dead and buried, so also the Reformed theologians claim that they would not know what to do with a Savior who, according to his
attributes communicated to human nature), in naturam divinam eam transformant, eum Schwenkfeldio deificant, eum Eutyche abolent. This subheading also includes the words of Danaeus: Nihil ghidquam quod Deitatis ipsius proprium et essentiale est, ulli Omnino rei creatae, qualis est humana et assumta a Christo natura, realiter communicari potest, nisi Deum quendam novum nasci et fieri posse concedamus. (Examination libri Chemnitii, p. 104.) 154] human nature, participates in the divine power, etc. *> In general, the whole thing is not only "unthinkable", but also "childish", "ridiculous", intolerabilis absurditas et contradictio, etc. *® In particular, they think they are allowed to mock the participation in the divine omnipresence as a "monster". In principle, Roman theologians agree with the Reformed theologians, although they treat the subject in less detail. °°’ The whole opposition is based on the decree that the human nature of Christ is not capable of participating in his divine attributes: Finitum non est capax infiniti. Against this Reformed position, we must again say two things: * the so resolute and fanatical denial of the communication of the divine attributes of the Son of God to his human nature is a. suicide, b. rejection of the clear teaching of Scripture. A. The suicide is obvious. If the human nature of Christ is not capable of divine omnipotence, divine knowledge etc. because of its finiteness, it is also not capable of the divine Person of the Son of God, which is just as infinite as his divine omnipotence etc. Now, however, the
"We would come out of the bare light here. All the suffering of the Redeemer, all his states of weakness and subordination would belong only to the outward appearance, and the congruent factor of satisfaction with an angry God would be completely lost to us. Before a human nature of the Redeemer that merges with the divine nature from the Incarnation on into one, and that can only be kept with difficulty within the framework of the status exinanitionis, the law is frightened and death flees, before it the children of God step shyly aside, for this is no longer the Redeemer according to Hebr. 2:14-18" (Dogmatik, p. 344 f.)
could not possibly think of anything in the case of a human nature of the Redeemer, to whom omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience as well as vitalizing power would have been communicated, and who at the same time would be under divine guilt from conception. Boehl admittedly forgot what he had said a few pages before, namely that the miracle of the person of Christ was not according to human understanding.
Lutherans as existing "in predicating of the human nature or of humanity the properties of the divine nature" Cath. Encycl.. IV, 169), and Joseph Hughes finds in Brenz the error, "that the attributes of the divine nature had been communicated to the humanity of Christ, which thus was deified (a. a. O. XV, 117). Reformed theologians want to hold on to the real binding of the Person of the Son of God with the human nature of Christ. Therefore they speak every word they utter against the communication of the divine attributes to the human nature of Christ directly against themselves, namely against the communication of the divine personality (hypostasis) of the Son of God to human nature, which they still claim against the Socinians. It is irrefutable what the Apology of the Book of Concord [CPH 2018, p. 130] says against the Neustadt Admonition in relation to this point: The personal union (as the communication of majesty of the divine attributes) is just as unbelievable as the sharing of majesty if one looks at the principle Finitum non est capax infiniti, that is, The finite may not contain the infinite. If from that principle one could deny the sharing of majesty, from the same principle one could deny the incarnation itself, since the conclusion follows in one place as firmly as in the other. *® We are dealing here on the Reformed side with one of the strangest confusions of the human mind, with a yes and no theology that can only be explained by the party spirit. Hase says quite rightly: "It is inconsistent to assert the highest unity of the person, while not wanting to venture on the lesser commonality of attributes." °6 It is also necessary to recall here again Seeberg's remark that with the concession of personal union or the doctrine of duality the Reformed theology had lost the right to speak against the communication of characteristics. *° We also recall how Frank leads the Reformed theologian Danaeus ad absurdum. When Danaeus declares that nothing which is proper and essential to God himself can be communicated to the human nature of Christ, Frank replies: "Nor, therefore, the Personality of the Logos, which, if anything, is proper to God himself. *°) Thus self-contradiction is the actual signature of the Reformed fight against the genus maiestaticum. Even all the terrible consequences which are supposed to result from the communication of the divine attributes to human nature, they speak against themselves, so long as they hold to the communication of the divine personality to human nature not merely nominally, but really
156] If the human nature of Christ were to be destroyed by the communication of divine omnipotence, so would the communication of divine personality. If it were "inconceivable", "ridiculous" and "nonsense" that divine power should be given to human nature, then exactly the same would be said of the communication of the divine personality. If Christ's life and suffering were to become a "bare semblance" of his human nature's participation in omnipotence and omniscience, we would have the same result through the participation of human nature in the divine person of the Son of God. If the sufficient character of Christ's life and suffering were to be lost because Christ's human nature is in real communion with the divine attributes, this would be the case above all because human nature has real communion with the divine Person of the Son of God. If Bohl is horrified by a healer whose human nature is given omnipotence and omniscience, he should be even more horrified by a healer whose human nature is communicated by the divine TI of the Son. In this darkness of yes and no theology on the part of the Reformed theologians only a point of light appears. It is that. They admit afterwards (Admonitio Neostadiensis, Bohl, Hodge) that the divine nature in Christ is effective and active in such a way that it gives the suffering of Christ infinite, sufficient value. In this way they themselves admit that there is a real communion of the divine nature and the characteristics of the divine nature with human nature. A merely nominal communion of the divine attributes with human nature could not be said to be an infinite sharing of value and satisfaction.. At the same time, however, it is also a proof of the tangible self-contradiction of Reformed theology, and of the irresponsibility of confusing Christianity by fanatically fighting against the communication of the divine attributes to the human nature of Christ. Still another self-contradiction may be pointed out here immediately. By fighting the genus maiestaticum the Reformed theologians want to save the human nature of Christ from destruction. In the excitement of the battle, they do not realize that in this attempt to rescue them, they are destroying the divine nature of Christ. Scripture speaks of such divine attributes that are_only given to Christ in time, like Matt. 28:18: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (€669n).". Since the Reformed theologians do not want to relate this statement to Christ according to human nature, only the relationship to Christ's divine nature remains. But with it they—as also Hase reminds in his "Hutterus redivivivus" 7°» —abolish Christ's eternal, essential divinity, and as Christ's "divinity" they have nothing left but an Arian creature or a Socinian world ruler equipped with divine dignity. But this brings us already to the second point that characterizes the Reformed denial of the communication of the divine attributes to human nature. It is this: through this denial the Reformed theologians enter into contradiction not only with themselves but also with Scripture. B. The communication of the divine attributes to the human nature is clear Scripture. It is taught, to pick up on what has just been said, wherever in the Scriptures of Christ the divine glory in general and individual divine attributes in particular, for example omnipotence and world dominion, are proclaimed as given to him in time. If one wanted to relate these statements to Christ according to his divine nature, one would deny Christ's eternal, essential divinity and make of Christ a God_made or become God in time, an Arian creature, a Unitarian world ruler. We already reminded above of Hase’s pronunciation in "Hutterus redivivus". Hase himself, of course, does not believe the two natures in Christ and therefore does not believe a communication of attributes. But in his "Hutterus redivivus" he wants to present the old Lutheran doctrine objectively and also defend it against objections in the sense of the old teachers. Thus he says also in defense of the genus maiestaticum: "In the Holy Scriptures attributes are undeniably attributed to the human nature of Christ, which can be attributed to it only by participation in divine attributes.... Divine power and glory is attributed to Christ, partly as only transmitted in the course of His earthly life, Matt. 11:27;
157-158] 28:18; Luke 10:22, partly as "first received in his life above earth for reward" (as a result) "of his obedience that was proven on earth, Phil. 2:8-10; Eph. 1:20 ff.; Hebr. 2:9; 5:8 f. Since, as God, he can receive nothing and can be exalted into nothing, the communication of divine attributes to human nature is thus clearly expressed. If this distinction were not made, the divinity of Christ himself would be refuted by those passages, and nothing would remain but an Arian creature or a Sociinian world ruler". 3°) What Hase says is irrefutable. The axiom of the ancient Church and the Formula of Concord: °° "What Holy Scripture testifies Christ received in time He received not according to the divine nature (according to which He has everything from eternity), but the person has received it in time ratione et respectu humanae naturae, that is, as referring, and with respect to, according to the assumed human nature."— this axiom is not a dogmatic construction, but Scripture. Thus the genus maiestaticum is already sufficiently proven. But because a whole circle of legends has been wrapped around this matter in the lull of time, and objections have been raised not only against individual writers but also against individual expressions in the scriptural passages, and the clear matter has been confused, it is useful to take a closer look at the scriptural passages which teach the communication of both the whole divine glory and the individual divine attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.). When Scripture Col. 2:9 testifies that "the whole fullness of the Godhead" dwells in Christ's human nature as in its o®pa (body), it teaches that not only an insubstantial person, but the Son of God is united with his human nature in all the richness of the divine being and divine attributes without any deduction (av to 2Ajpw@Lna ths edt wos). Furthermore, when the Scriptures Joh. 1:14; 1 Joh. 1:1 ff.; Joh. 2:11 testify that AGyoc entered into the flesh in such a way that the disciples saw His divine glory in His human nature with their eyes and touched it with their hands, it is again clearly taught that the whole divine being with all divine attributes was not only nominally but in realiter united with the human nature of Christ. All scriptural statements which ascribe to Christ, according to the human nature, divine
Decl., VU, 57; FC VII, 57] glory (so in particular also Joh. 17:6: d6Ga06v ue... ev TH SGEtH Tov 7 sixov MPO TOV TOV KOGHOV sivat), cover the whole genus maiestaticum, because the divine glory possessed all divine attributes in itself. In addition, there is now a second series of scriptural testimonies in which the individual divine attributes of Christ are stated_according to his human nature. The communicated Omnipotence. The Epistle to the Hebrews teaches us by quoting testimony already present in the Old Testament: Thou hast put all things (mévta) in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all (t& aGvta) in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. *& Two things are expressed in these words. Firstly, the power given to Christ is not described as a limited power, but as divine omnipotence, as dominion over the universe. The statement TAVITA VIETACAS DIOKATH TOV NOd@v adtod is further reinforced by the addition "Ev 1 yap bxotdéa1 adtd Ta Tavta ovdEv GONKEV ADTO avutdtaKtov. On the other hand, if we add v. 7 and 9, it is expressed here that this divine omnipotence was given to Christ after his previous humiliation, that is, in time, according to his human nature. Both thoughts are also already clearly expressed in the prophecy of Daniel: the bestowal of power in time, that is, according to human nature, in the words: "One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him"; the attribute of the given power as divine power in the words: There was given Him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away.
the risen Savior commissions his church to go into the whole world and teach all nations (Matt. 28:19-20), he sends ahead—for the comfort of the church—the reminder that he, the risen one, was given a power (¢569n), by virtue of which he has unlimited power (doa sEovoia) not merely in one country, nor merely
on earth, but in heaven and on earth (év ovpav Kai ézi yijc) has_unlimited power (xéo0, e£0voia) °° Nor does Scripture leave us in any doubt that divine omnipotence was inherent in his human nature even before the exaltation of Christ. According to human nature, Christ is omnipotent not only after and through the exaltation, but already through the unio personalis, that is, already in the state of humiliation. This is expressed in a whole series of scriptural passages. The state of humiliation is referred to in Matt. 11:27: mévta wot tapedd9y vA6 Tov matpdc Lov [All things are delivered unto Me of My Father’’]; Joh. 13:3 maévta g5@Kev adta o Iatip sic Tas xeipac; Joh. 3:35: mavta Séd@xKeEv Ev TH yElpi adTOD. Also Isaiah 9:6 the Wa7N3-2¥ ANIDAT *%YnIn] [HEBREW] is already said of the "Child" to be born for us [The government shall be upon His shoulder.]. The one born of the Virgin is from his birth in possession of divine power and majesty. But the Scriptures are much more detailed with regard to the communication of divine power and the human nature of Christ. The power to raise the dead and judge on the Last Day are certainly not acts of a donum finitum, but of divine omnipotence. But these functions are given to Christ, 5n vidc avi'ponov iotiv. Here it makes no difference whether one translates: "because he is the Son of Man" or: "because he is the Son of Man". In any case, we are talking about the divine omnipotence that is given to Christo according to his human nature in time. * Christ's miracles also prove that the omnipotence was inherent in his human nature through communication. Christ does not perform miracles like the prophets and apostles,
Chemnitii, p. 398), claims that not divine power is described here, but potestas longe inferior, is not to be negotiated with further.
II, 294): "Who would still like to interpret the scriptural statement that Christ was given the power to judge because he is the Son of Man (Joh. 5:27) directly as meaning that such power was given to Christ" (quia Filius hominis est, (for the reason that He is the Son of Man] Frank omits these words of the F. C.), "quatenus carnem et sanguinem habet? The words of the Scriptures Joh. 5:27 do not need to be interpreted in this way, but they read as follows, as Meyer z. St. correctly remarks: "This power (of judgment) was given to him by the Father, because he is a Son of Man, that is, because he is a man, and therefore cannot have the authority of judgment of his own accord and would not have it if it had not been given to him by the Father. who in their miracles revealed a foreign omnipotence (as Peter explicitly confesses Acts 3:12: "Why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?"), but Christ does miracles by his own omnipotence, as at the wedding feast at Cana, é9avép@oe THv 56Eav avtov. And the disciples also recognized this. They testify that they saw divine glory in Christ when he dwelt among them, that is to say in his human nature in the state of humiliation, mv 56€av > Lovoyevobs mapa matpdc. 2) Yes, through communication the divine omnipotence is so peculiar to the human nature of Christ that the Scriptures also testify the omnipotence directly from the human nature of Christ: 1) o&p& Lov GAnSac eott Bpdotc,? and: to aipa Inoov Xpiotov tov viot avtod Ka8apicer nudc and néons apaptiac. 7) (Konkordienf., p. 686, 59; [Trigl. 1034, F. C., Sol. Decl., VII, 59.]) More can be said later about the so-called abstract ways of speaking in the second genus. So clearly and abundantly does Scripture teach the actual communication of the divine omnipotence to human nature. But with this we have not yet completely drawn the historical reality as it is presented to us in Scripture. In addition to the omnipotence we have communicated, we also grant limited power to Christ in the state of humiliation according to human nature. Scripture teaches this limited power when it reports that Christ became weary, an angel from heaven strengthened him, the servants of the Jews seized him and bound him, and then the Gentiles led him to the site of the skull and put him on the cross. 374 How is this coexistence of omnipotence and limited power to be understood? We are not dependent here on guessing and theological speculation. Scripture itself gives us a clear indication of where it came from that he became tired and weak, yes, suffered and died, in whose human nature the whole fullness of the Godhead, and especially also omnipotence, dwelt. Scripture explains this fact by referring to the ministry that Christ had to carry out among men and for men on earth. This ministry did not consist in the fact that he
more omniscient or almighty than the worker of a miracle is omnipotent. (Syst. Theol. I, 417.)
paraded here on earth among men as God, but in the fact that he suffered and died in the place of men and by his death took away the power of him who had the power of death over men. As far as the direction of this office required, Christ made use of the divine omnipotence dwelling in him. He possessed the omnipotence, but he did not use it, but let it "rest" in him. Christ was poor, weak, suffered and novyaCovtos tov Adyov (Irenaus). And this again is not human speculation, not of Church fathers and "Lutheran dogmatics", but this explanation is given by Christ himself when he says in reference to his death: "No one takes it (life) from me, but I leave it from myself. I have power to leave it and have power to take it away again">> But that this power to die and live at will is to be related to Christ according to his human nature, goes without saying, since according to his divine nature suffering, dying and resurrection cannot be attributed to Christ, vaciav, a> oiKOv anpdortov. *’° There is more to be said about this in the Doctrine of the States of Christ. But even here it is already clear to us: the limited power that we grant to Christ in the state of humiliation does not consist in the renunciation of omnipotence, be it according to divine or human nature, but in the voluntary renunciation of the use of power in His human nature. The communicated omniscience. According to his human nature, Scripture attributes to Christ not only extraordinary human knowledge,* but also divine knowledge or omniscience. Just as Christ performs miracles quite differently from the prophets and apostles, namely out of his own omnipotence, so too in his prophetic ministry 74 pywata tov Sov he speaks quite differently from the prophets and apostles. While these, like John the Baptist, ex t>s ynsc, speak of the earth, that is, from revelation that takes place on earth (through inspiration), Christ speaks as 6 ex Tov ovpavov spyopEvoc what he saw and heard "in the council of the Holy Trinity and saw continuously and uninterruptedly in his proclamation on earth and
heard as 6 Ov E1c TOV KOATOV Tov natpdc and as 6 Ov Ev ev TH Obpava. *78) In other words, Christ taught on earth not from human but from his divine knowledge, the source of which was the uninterrupted Trinitarian relationship. But since this teaching of Christ took place in human nature and through the human nature of Christ, his human nature was partaking of the divine knowledge. This is also expressed when in the same context it is said of Christ as God's messenger kat' sGoxrv that God gives him the Spirit ovK ek wétpov *!%), while believers have only gifts of grace katé 16 wétppv *8. The gift of the Spirit ob ek pétpov is, according to the context, the name of the divine knowledge communicated. **’ — Furthermore, if Christ, in his teaching activity on earth, was a true-hearted man—he did not need anyone to bear witness to him about a human being, avtdc yap éyivwoxe Ti 6 Hv Ev TO GvOpanw *%—, then he used divine knowledge in his human nature, since according to Scripture, being a true-hearted man belongs to God alone, KAPSLOYVOTNS KapSioyvOotns KapSioyvaotns Fedc,**9) Besides, in Christ there was also limited knowledge in the state of humiliation according to human nature. Luke 2:52:
of the word here. Christ has testified the "divine things" on earth, not because he was in heaven before (Nésgen, Geschichte der neutestliche. Rev. 1, 218), nor because he went to heaven afterwards (Meyer on Joh. 1:18), nor because he went to heaven every day for the purpose of learning in the spirit (BGhl, Dogmatik, p. 340), But because his é€nyeto801 [explanation] on earth was in the sic tov KOAmov Tob maTpdc [in the bosom of the Father], at the same time. The Trinitarian relationship was not interrupted by the Incarnation. The whole futility of the contrary view is expressed in was still in heaven (3:13), yet not de facto, but de jure. According to this, the thought would be: Because Christ had a right to heaven, but was not actually in heaven, he could reveal the heavenly things to which no man has access. Correct, however, is Dummelow on "which is in heaven" [A commentary on the Holy Bible, p. 780]: "Some important authorities" (§ [HEBREW] B, L) "omit these words, which, if genuine, affirm that our Lord was at the same time on earth and in heaven, in a state of humiliation and in a state of glory.
442 as well as Hengstenberg and Keil on the passage; Quenstedt II, 232 sq.
mpoékonte oogia.; Mark. 13:32: ovdé 6 vI6c, scil. cide Epi TIS NUEPAS exsivysc. On the basis of the Scripture in Christ, we must distinguish, according to human nature, a double knowledge: the knowledge that is communicated to human nature from the divine through personal union, and the knowledge that is given to human nature, as a natural, essential attribute. The former is infinite (omniscientia), the latter is finite and capable of growth (scientia naturalis, habitualis, experimentalis). When Scripture reports that Jesus has increased in wisdom, mpoéxomte cogia, this is not to be understood as a mere apparent growth, but as a real growth,** but according to the natural knowledge essential to human nature. But how could limited knowledge be found in one and the same person besides divine knowledge? In the same way that in one and the same person, besides omnipotence, limited power, powerlessness and death were a fact. Like divine omnipotence, divine knowledge in the state of humiliation was not always active in human nature, but only to the extent necessary to direct the ministry of Christ. Thus divine knowledge did not operate in human nature in relation to the day and hour of the end of the world,*®°) because the Last Day is not the object of proclamation on earth, but according to divine order it is to remain hidden from men. We therefore have to say: Just as HovyaCovtos tov AGyou, that is, by not actuating the divine omnipotence in human nature, in this nature, besides omnipotence, limited power, poverty, fatigue, suffering and dying is allowed, so nHovyaCovtos tov Adyov, by not actuating the divine knowledge in human nature, in this nature, besides divine omniscience, knowledge is limited. Of course, it has been said that it is difficult, even impossible, to imagine an actus primus (the omniscience thought at rest) and an actus secundus (the omniscience thought in action) in relation to the communicated omniscience. The Reformed theologians
crevisse, non simulate profecto, sed in rei veritate, ut Lucas scribit, coram Deo et hominibus. (Libelli quatuor de pers. Christi, [Google] p. 70.) Plus Luther, St. ZL. XII 155.
and dogma-historically very thoroughly. Cf. Luther Sz. L. XII, 155 f. mock here. The Princeton Review also spoke of "nonsense" here a few years ago. *86) One has to admit the difficulty. Even the old Lutheran theologians were aware of the difficulty. But, if you look closely, the conceptual difficulty is no greater in not actuating omniscience than in not actuating omnipotence. The fact that the poor could be, suffer and die with whom the divine omnipotence and divine life remained personally united is not more comprehensible than the fact that the one who could not know something with whom the divine omniscience was personally united. The "conceptual difficulty" does not only begin with the double knowledge that we historically have about Christ, but lies further back. It lies there that the infinite God and the finite man form an I. Whoever accepts this basic fact, despite its "conceptual difficulty", as a fact in the light of the testimony of Scripture, and also admits fatigue, suffering and dying in being united with the person, the Son of God, reveals the opposite of wisdom and scientificity, when he now afterwards gets so excited about the individual facts of this wonderful God-human life as testified by Scripture that he speaks of "nonsense", when it is a matter of "retracted omnipotence" as well as of "retracted omniscience". In order to make the resting of divine knowledge in the human nature of Christ visible in something, ancient theologians have reminded us that in man in the state of sleep knowledge is not lost, but only rests or is reduced to the actus primus. *8 That is correct. There is certainly a dormant knowledge. At one time in psychology, there was not incorrect talk of knowledge "sunk below the threshold of consciousness". But it is good when the old teachers explain that they do not prove anything with the analog of human knowledge, but only want to illustrate something that is already established in the Scriptures. Christ is divine knowledge resting in human nature. It must be admitted that the divine knowledge, taken for itself, is not to be thought of as dormant,
all. To speak of potential omniscience is simply to talk nonsense."
but always as active (as actus purissimus). But this is not divine knowledge in itself, but divine knowledge in so far as it has entered into the human nature of Christ and is active or not active in this human nature,**®) just as the divine omnipotence, according to the need of the office to be performed, was active or not active in human nature. But where is the unity of consciousness in Christ? Well, we are not facing a theory here, but a fact. The Scripture says of the one Person of Christ both the unlimited divine knowledge and the limited human knowledge, as we have seen above. After all, it is not a question of whether we can "think" something, but whether something is a fact. Even Bohl reminds us of this when he says in reference to the divine omniscience in Christ: "Jesus Christ, the eternal wisdom, did not apply this wisdom. This cannot be explained rationally; we cannot indicate how he could deny and, so to speak, forget the omniscience. But that he did not apply it is historically certain."*8