Hence Christ came with signs and wonders; that is, the absolute, or the anterior to cause and effect, manifested itself as a 'phenomenon' in time, but with the predicates of eternity;--and this is the only possible definition of a miracle 'in re ipsa', and not merely 'ad hominem', or 'ad ignorantiam'.
Ib.p.

177.
His next argument consists in applying such things to the divinity of our Saviour as belong to his humanity; 'that he increased in wisdom, &c.:--that he knows not the day of judgment';--which he evidently speaks of himself as man: as all the ancient Fathers confess.

In St.
Mark it is said, 'But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels that are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father'.
St.Matthew does not mention the Son: 'Of that day and hour knoweth no man, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only'.
How much more politic, as well as ingenuous, it had been to have acknowledged the difficulty of this text.

So far from its being evident, the evidence would be on the Arian side, were it not that so many express texts determine us to the contrary.
Ib.
Which shows that the Son in St.Matthew is included in the [Greek: oudeis] none, or no man, and therefore concerns him only as a man: for the Father 'includes the whole Trinity', and therefore includes the Son, who seeth whatever his Father doth.
This is an 'argumentum in circulo', and 'petitio rei sub lite'.

Why is he called the Son in 'antithesis' to the Father, if it meant, "no not the Christ, except in his character of the co-eternal Son, included in the Father ?" If it "concerned him only as a man," why is he placed after the angels?
Why called the 'Son' simply, instead of the Son of Man, or the Messiah?
Ib.
[Greek: Oudeis] is not [Greek: oudeis anthropon], but, 'no one': as in John i.18.