“In praising call;” that is, “in praising the Lord, call.” For thou wilt not be safe from thine enemies, if thou praise thyself. “In praising call upon the Lord, and thou shalt be safe from thine enemies.” For what doth the Lord Himself say? “The sacrifice of praise shall glorify Me, and there is the way, in which I will show him My salvation.”2272 Where is the way? In the sacrifice of praise. Let not your foot then wander out of this way. Keep in the way; depart not from it; from the praise of the Lord depart not a foot, nay, not a nail’s breadth. For if thou wilt deviate from this way, and praise thyself instead of the Lord, thou wilt not be safe from thine enemies; for it is said of them, “They have laid stumbling-blocks for me by the way.”2273 Therefore in whatever measure thou thinkest that thou hast good of thine own self, thou hast deviated from the praise of God. Why dost thou marvel then, if thine enemy seduce thee, when thou art thine own seducer? Hear the Apostle, “For if a man think himself to be something when he is nothing, he seduceth himself.”2274 7. Give heed then to the Lord confessing; “I confess to Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth.” I confess to Thee, that is, I praise Thee. I praise Thee, not I accuse myself. Now as far as the taking of very2275 man is concerned, all is grace, singular and perfect grace. What merit had that man2276 who is Christ, if thou take away the grace, even that so pre- eminent grace, whereby it behoved that there should be One Christ, and that He whom we 2272 Ps. xlix. 23, Sept. (l. English version). 2273 Ps. cxxxix. 6, Sept. (cxl. 5, English version). 2274 Gal. vi. 3, Vulg. 2275 Ipsius. 2276 It was the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, that the man Christ was exalted to be the Son of God (προκοπῄ, from Luke ii. 52), as if by merit. Origen seems to hold the same, at least as regards the (supposed) pre-existent soul of Christ (vid. Huet. Origen, ii. 3, § 6; vid. however De la Rue’s note); and the Arians, at least implicitly (Socr. Hist. i. 6, Athan. Orat. contr. Arian, i. 35, iii. 51; and Leporius, Cassian. Incarn. i. 3, 4). The same heresy was imputed to the Nestorians (but falsely according to Garner, in Mar. Merc. pt. i. p. 431), and thereby connected them with the Pelagians, as if unassisted human nature could merit grace. The Church on the other hand, pro- ceeding from Rom. i. 4, taught that the human nature which became the manhood of the Word was predestined to be such by grace before its creation, and became such in the moment of creation. St. Athanasius touches on this subject against the Arians (Orat. i. 46); St. Augustin enlarges on it against the Pelagians (De Prædest. Sanct. 23, 30; De Corrept. et Grat. 30); St. Cyril, against the Nestorians (Contra Nest. iii. p. 83); Vigilius, against the Monophysites (Contra Eutych. v. B. P. t. 4, p. 528, ed. 1624). When St. Augustin says “that man,” he is speaking of our Lord’s human nature as abstracted from that Divine Person in whom it actually existed, and not as if it ever existed as a separate hypostasis. This use of “homo” and ἄνθρωπος is very frequent with the Fathers; what is more startling is the expression “homo ille,” yet vid. also Augustin, De Præd. Sanct. 30; Alcuin, De Trin. iii. 1; Agobard, Cont. Felic. B. P. t. 9, p. 1194. However, this point is a subject of debate among theologians (vid. Petav. De Incarn. xi. fin.). 659 On the words of the Gospel, Matt. xi. 25, ‘I thank thee, O Father, Lord…