From the eighteenth century onward to the middle of the nineteenth there was no break in the tradition put forward by St. Thomas and his commentators.

In our day St. Thomas is still supreme, as appears from the writings of Franzelin (De Verbo Incarnato), Father Lepicier (De Incarnatione Verbi, I, pp. 395-419), Cardinal Satolli (De Incarnatione pp. 180-216). Cardinal Satolli not only follows the path marked out by St. Thomas, but emphasizes particularly the principle which has guided the theologians in formulating the doctrines concerning the human knowledge of Christ. "Illud maxime subit, reperire a primo instante conceptionis actualiter omnia ea quae rationalis natura apta nata sit habere, nec non excelsiora status in quantum humana divinæ naturæ secundum hypostasim conjuncta sit."

RESUMÉ.

I. The constant tradition in Scripture and in the Fathers makes it impossible to interpret the Kenosis (Philippians ii, 6) as referring to the divine nature.

II. Catholic theology has ever admitted in Christ's human nature the limitations essential to a finite and created being, and consequently:

III. Catholic faith confirmed in the Council of Basle teaches that Christ as man saw not the Father as clearly as the Father sees himself.

IV. The same Catholic tradition confirmed in our day by the Syllabus of Pius X (Proposition 33) excludes any possibility of error in the human knowledge of Christ.

V. Scripture unequivocally gives evidence of a supernatural knowledge in the soul of the Man-God.

VI. This fulness of supernatural knowledge embraces the beatific vision in the soul of Christ. This doctrine is taught, implicitly at least, in Scripture and in patristic tradition, and it is held explicitly with such unanimity by theologians and faithful as to make it part of Christian faith (Cf. Irish Theological Quarterly, vol. I, No. 2, pp. 206-207).

VII. The same is true concerning the "scientia infusa ' Christ.

VIII. With a high degree of certainty we can assert with St. Thomas a real growth in the earthly knowledge of Christ because of the "scientia" called "acquisita."

IX. In the light of this "scientia acquisita" there is an easy way of interpreting the Fathers who admitted a real advancement in the human knowledge of Jesus Christ.

X.

The patristic and theological tradition about the knowledge of the last Day we have given above. Concerning this we say that the Fathers who seem to admit a real ignorance of the day of judg ment, did it "concessione quadam ut Arianos abundantiori vi argumentationis obruerent."

XI. Long before the days of Gregory the Great there was no ecclesiastical writer that did not hold categorically that Christ in very deed had knowledge of the day and the hour of judgment.

XII. The difficulty arising from the sorrow and suffering of the soul of Christ, and the reconciliation of this fact with the doctrine that Christ always enjoyed the beatific vision, still remains. The greatest theologians admit that we are in presence of a mighty mystery; but because the beatific vision in the soul of Christ is a doctrine in permanent possession, no Catholic teacher may solve the difficulty by denying that Christ, in every moment of His mortal life saw God as He is. (Suarez, Disp. 38 sect. 3).

XIII. Intimately bound up with the mystery of the Incarnation is the Catholic feeling throughout the ages that the fulness of all knowledge must be in Him who assumed the headship of our race that he might lead us to glory. "Quandoquidem advenerat Christus inter nos excellentissimus testis divinæ veritatis itemque perfectissimus dux ad beatitudinem et consummatus præceptor sanctitatis" (Billot, De Verbo Incarnato, Thesis xix, Quæst. ix-xii).

XIV. Equally strong has been the feeling in Christian hearts in all the centuries since Christ that the hypostatic union was incompatible with lack of knowledge in the soul of Him who was "full of grace and truth," and to whom "the Spirit had not been given by measure."

Quantunque alla natura umana lece
Aver di lume, tutto fosse infuso
Da quel valor che l'uno e l'altro fece.

Paradiso, Cant. xiii.

EDWARD J. HANNA.

CHURCH AND STATE FROM ULIAN

TO THEODOSIUS

Maurice M. Hassett

The victory over orthodoxy of the Acacian party at the synod of Constantinople in 3601 was destined to be as short lived as that of their Arian predecessors a quarter of a century before. The Emperor to whom it was wholly due died the following year and was succeeded by his apostate cousin, Julian, the younger son of a brother of the great Constantine. The early years of the new Emperor's life were passed at Nicomedia and Constantinople, under the eye of Eusebius of Nicomedia, then head of the Arian party. Eusebius and his followers were not the kind of personages to recommend Christianity to a youth of the temperament of the young Julian, yet in justice to the ambitious court Bishop it must be said that his shortcomings as a Christian prelate had probably little or no influence in determining his pupil to abandon Christianity. The apostasy of Julian was due primarily to his love of Greek literature The gods of Greece, as portrayed in Greek literature, suited his peculiar taste better than the Christian God of the unclassical Gospels. His "conversion" to paganism was completed by the sophist Maximus of Ephesus who initiated him in the mysticism of the neoplatonist philosophy. It was only at the time of his rebellion against Constantius, however, that Julian allowed his real sentiments to become generally known. The sudden death of the Emperor left the last male survivor of the house of Constantine without a competitor for imperial honors and his hands were at length wholly free to attempt the restoration to his beloved gods of their former honors.

The accession of a ruler who hated all forms of Christianity quite impartially was a grievous blow to the so lately triumphant henchmen of Acacius of Caesarea. Julian, indeed, began his reign with a proclamation of tolerance towards all religions, but tolerance of their opponents was the last thing the heretics desired, and without the civil power, they were perfectly well aware, their cause was desperate.

The real attitude of Julian towards Christianity did not long remain doubtful. On his entry into Constantinople he summoned 'THE NEW YORK REVIEW, May-June, 1907, p. 698 sqq.

before him the heads of the various parties, and after assuring them that they were free to follow their individual inclination in religious matters, concluded with the statement that official Christianity was at an end. This announcement, if made in good faith, would probably have been, at that time, quite satisfactory to the orthodox, but the Emperor's impartiality soon proved of a more than dubious order. He revoked, indeed, the sentence of exile against the banished Bishops: an act which seemed in keeping with his pronouncement; but his real intention in this step was, according to the pagan historian Ammianus, Marcellinus, to promote discord in the camp of the enemy. The return of the orthodox and Semi-Arian Bishops would be followed by the organization in nearly every city of two Christian communities, orthodox and heterodox, the consequence of which would likely be still graver dissensions. The anti-Christian bias of Julian in other matters also was not long in revealing itself. Under the previous Christian Emperors pagans continued to hold high and influential offices, but the philosopher apostate had no intention of following this principle with regard to Christians. The now despised followers of the Galilean were excluded from the imperial household and the high administrative offices; in the army such officers as the future Emperors Jovian and Valentinian had to endure a certain degree of persecution and of course total disfavor; and finally, the teaching of grammar, rhetoric and philosophy was interdicted to those who professed the Christian religion.

Ostracism of Christians during the fortunately brief reign of Julian was the order of the day. There was no open persecution, but the animus of the Emperor was very well known in pagan circles, and immunity for outrage against Christians was assured. Yet the Emperor made little headway in his policy of predilection. Nobody but Julian any longer took the least interest in the gods, and the fall of the apostate (June 26, 363) in his campaign against the Persians was the deathblow of paganism. The great problem of the future was to be, not one of the relations of a reformed paganism to Christianity, but of the proper adjustment of the respective claims of the Christian Church and the Christian State.

While the principal officers of the army were debating the question of the imperial succession, after the death of Julian, the soldiers put an end to the discussion by proclaiming as Emperor Jovian, a 'Ammian. Marcell. xxii, 5; cf. Duchesne, Histoire Ancienne de l'Eglise, ii, 329 Cf. Duchesne, op. cit., p. 333.

Christian officer, who held the rank of commander of the domestic guard. The new Emperor, after terms of peace with the Persians had been agreed to, returned to Antioch, and was at once approached by the heads of the various parties of Christians. But Jovian, who knew nothing of theology, gave his interviewers to understand that his greatest desire was to see peace and unity reign among his coreligionists. He himself, however, was strictly orthodox. One of his first acts was to recall Athanasius, who had been exiled by Julian as an enemy of the gods. Having little confidence apparently in the Bishops who so speedily endeavored to win him, each to his own views, the Emperor wrote a flattering letter to the Bishop of Alexandria, asking for a brief exposition of the orthodox doctrine. Athanasius at once forwarded his reply which recommended the "faith confessed by the fathers at Nice." Meletius of Antioch, who was orthodox, naturally agreed to this, but so also did Acacius of Caesarea, the man responsible more than any other for the wholesale deposition of orthodox and Semi-Arian Bishops under Constantius. The guiding principle of this accommodating prelate and his followers was to stand well with the head of the State; their own opinions, could they have them accepted, were of course what they preferred; but since for the moment the fates were against them-they needs must yield. Subsequently, under Valens, Acacius was among the first to return to Arianism.

Circumstances again in a very short time came to the rescue of this newest sect of political Arians, variously known as the Acacian or the Homoion party. Jovian died before he reached Constantinople, and the General Valentinian was chosen his successor. Valentinian, like his predecessor, was orthodox, but he at once associated with him, as head of the Eastern portion of the Empire, his brother Valens, who was destined to carry on the tradition of Constantius. The policy of Valentinian in religious matters, as soon appeared, was one of strict neutrality. In the beginning of his reign he proclaimed religious liberty for all, with the exception of Manicheans and astrologers, and better still he observed throughout his reign the spirit, if not always perhaps the strict letter, of his proclamation. So accustomed were some Bishops to the idea of imperial hegemony, however, that they could not at first believe the Emperor really intended to take no part in ecclesiastical matters, save in so far as concerned the preservation of order. Thus, while passing through Thrace 'Theod. iv, 2, 3; cf. Socrates, H. E. iii, 24 ss; Sozomen, H. E. iv, 4 ss.