[3108] Cf. §48.
[3109] And so Athan. ad Serap. ii. 9. S. Basil on the question being asked him by S. Amphilochius, says that he shall give him the answer he had heard from a boy from the fathers,' but which was more fitted for pious Christians than for cavillers, and that is, that our Lord says many things to men in His human aspect; as "Give me to drink,"...yet He who asked was not flesh without a soul, but Godhead using flesh which had one.' Ep. 236, 1. He goes on to suggest another explanation which has been mentioned §42, note 1. Cf. Cyril Trin. pp. 623, 4. vid. also Thes. p. 220. As he submitted as man to hunger and thirst, so....to be ignorant." p. 221. vid. also Greg. Naz. Orat. 30, 15. Theodoret expresses the same opinion very strongly, speaking of a gradual revelation to the manhood from the Godhead, but in an argument where it was to his point to do so; in Anath. 4. t. v. p. 23. ed. Schulze. Theodore of Mopsuestia also speaks of a revelation made by the Word. ap. Leont. c. Nest (Canis. i. p. 579.)
[3110] Or. i. 47; Serap. i. 20 fin.
[3111] Leporius, in his Retractation, which S. Augustine subscribed, writes, That I may in this respect also leave nothing to be cause of suspicion to any one, I then said, nay I answered when it was put to me, that our Lord Jesus Christ was ignorant as He was man, (secundum hominem). But now not only do I not presume to say so, but I even anathematize my former opinion expressed on this point,' ap. Sirm. t. i. p. 210. A subdivision also of the Eutychians were called by the name of Agnoetæ from their holding that our Lord was ignorant of the day of judgment. They said,' says Leontius, that He was ignorant of it, as we say that He underwent toil.' de Sect. 5. circ. fin. Felix of Urgela held the same doctrine according to Agobard's testimony, see §46, n. 2. Montfaucon observes on the text, that the assertion of our Lord's ignorance seems to have been condemned in no one in ancient times, unless joined to other error.' And Petavius, after drawing out the authorities for and against it, says, Of these two opinions, the latter, which is now received both by custom and by the agreement of divines, is deservedly preferred to the former. For it is more agreeable to Christ's dignity, and more befitting His character and office of Mediator and Head, that is, Fountain of all grace and wisdom, and moreover of Judge, who is concerned in knowing the time fixed for exercising that function. In consequence, the former opinion, though formerly it received the countenance of some men of high eminence, was afterwards marked as a heresy.' Incarn. xi. 1. §15.
[3112] Mat. xi. 27.
[3113] Or. ii. 41, iii. 9, 46.
[3114] John xvi. 15.
[3115] Basil. Ep. 236, 1. Cyril. Thes. p. 220. Ambros. de fid. v. 197. Hence the force of the word living' commonly joined to such words as eikon, sphragis, boule, energeia, when speaking of our Lord, e.g. Naz. Orat. 30, 20, c. Vid. §63, fin. note.
[3116] Or. i. 50, n. 7.
[3117] It is a question to be decided, whether our Lord speaks of actual ignorance in His human Mind, or of the natural ignorance of that Mind considered as human; ignorance in or ex natura; or, which comes to the same thing, whether He spoke of a real ignorance, or of an economical or professed ignorance, in a certain view of His incarnation or office, as when He asked, How many loaves have ye?' when He Himself knew what He would do,' or as He is called sin, though sinless. Thus it has been noticed, supr. ii. 55, n. 7, that Ath. seems to make His infirmities altogether only imputative, not real, as if shewing that the subject had not in his day been thoroughly worked out. In like manner S. Hilary, who, if the passage be genuine, states so clearly our Lord's ignorance, de Trin. ix. fin. yet, as Petavius observes, seems elsewhere to deny to Him those very affections of the flesh to which he has there paralleled it. And this view of Athan.'s meaning is favoured by the turn of his expressions. He says such a defect belongs to that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant;' §43. that since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant, to say, "I know not;"' ibid. and, as here, that as shewing His manhood, in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on a flesh that was ignorant, being in which, He said according to the flesh, "I know not;"' that He might shew that as man He knows not;' §46. that as man' (i.e. on the ground of being man, not in the capacity of man), He knows not;' ibid. and that, He asks about Lazarus humanly,' even when He was on His way to raise him,' which implied surely knowledge in His human nature. The reference to the parallel of S. Paul's professed ignorance when he really knew, §47. leads us to the same suspicion. And so for our profit as I think, did He this.' §§48-50. The natural want of precision on such questions in the early ages was shewn or fostered by such words as oikonomikos, which, in respect of this very text, is used by S. Basil to denote both our Lord's Incarnation, Ep. 236, 1 fin. and His gracious accommodation of Himself and His truth, Ep. 8, 6. and with the like variety of meaning, with reference to the same text, by Cyril. Trin. p. 623. and Thesaur. p. 224. (And the word dispensatio in like manner, Ben. note on Hil. x. 8.) In the latter Ep. S. Basil suggests that our Lord economizes by a feigned ignorance.' §6. And S. Cyril. Thesaur. p. 224. And even in de Trin. vi. he seems to recognise the distinction laid down just now between the natural and actual state of our Lord's humanity; and so Hilary, Trin. ix. 62. And he gives reasons why He professed ignorance, n. 67. viz. as S. Austin words it, Christum se dixisse nescientem, in quo alios facit occultando nescientes. Ep. 180, 3. S. Austin follows him, saying, Hoc nescit quod nescienter facit. Trin. i. 23. Pope Gregory says that the text is most certainly to be referred to the Son not as He is Head, but as to His body which we are.' Ep x. 39. And S. Ambrose de fid. v. 222. And so Cæsarius, Qu. 20. and Photius Epp. p. 366. Chrysost. in Matt. Hom. 77, 3. Theodoret, however, but in controversy, is very severe on the principle of Economy. If He knew the day, and wishing to conceal it, said He was ignorant, see what a blasphemy is the result. Truth tells an untruth.' l. c, pp. 23, 4.
[3118] §48.
[3119] Matt. xxiv. 42, 44.
[3120] Matt. xxiv. 39.
[3121] Gen. vii. 1.
[3122] Matt. xxv. 13.
[3123] The mode in which Athan. here expresses himself, is as if he did not ascribe ignorance literally, but apparent ignorance, to our Lord's soul, vid. supr. 45. n. 2; not certainly in the broad sense in which heretics have done so. As Leontius, e.g. reports of Theodore of Mopsuestia, that he considered Christ to be ignorant so far, as not to know, when He was tempted, who tempted Him;' contr. Nest. iii. (Canis. t. i. p. 579.) and Agobard of Felix the Adoptionist that he held Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh truly to have been ignorant of the sepulchre of Lazarus, when He said to his sisters, Where have ye laid him?' and was truly ignorant of the day of judgment; and was truly ignorant what the two disciples were saying, as they walked by the way, of what had been done at Jerusalem; and was truly ignorant whether He was more loved by Peter than by the other disciples, when He said, Simon Peter, Lovest thou Me more than these?' B. P. t. 9. p. 1177. [Cf. Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.]
[3124] Eph. v. 14.
[3125] §37.
[3126] Cf. 44, n. 4.
[3127] Luke x. 22.
[3128] 2 Cor. xii. 2. S. Augustine understands the passage differently, i.e. that S. Paul really did not know whether or not he was in the body. Gen. ad lit. xii. 14.
[3129] paranomian, §2, n. 5.
[3130] Cf. Jerome, He speaks not in ecstasy, as Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla rave;' Præf. in Naum. In like manner Tertullian speaks of amentia, as the spiritalis vis qua constat prophetia;' de Anim. 21. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. v. 16. Epiphanius too, noticing the failure of Maximilla's prophecies, says, Whatever the prophets have said, they spoke with understanding, following the sense.' Hær. 48. p. 403. In the de Syn. 4. Athan. speaks of the Montanists as making a fresh beginning of Christianity; i.e. they were the first heretics who professed to prophesy and to introduce a new or additional revelation.
[3131] despotes, §56, 6.
[3132] This expression, which repeatedly occurs in this and the following sections, surely implies that there was something economical in our Lord's profession of ignorance. He said with a purpose, not as a mere plain fact or doctrine. [But see Prolegg. ch. iv. §5.]
[3133] 43, n. 9; 45, n. 3.
[3134] Acts i. 7.
[3135] Vid. Basil. Ep. 8, 6. Cyril. Thes. p. 222. Ambros. de fid. v. 212. Chrysost. and Hieron. in loc. Matt.
[3136] Vid. Hilar. in Matt. Comment. 26, 4; de Trin. ix. 67; Ambros. de Fid. v. c. 17. Isidor. Pelus. Epp. i. 117. Chrysost. in Matt. Hom. 77, 2 and 3.
[3137] Vid. Phil. iii. 13.
[3138] Matt. xxiv. 42; Luke xii. 40.
[3139] Vid. 2 Thess. ii. 1, 2.
[3140] Gen. iii. 9; iv. 9. This seems taken from Origen, in Matt. t. 10. §14. vid. also Pope Gregory and Chrysost. infr.
[3141] S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and Pope Gregory, in addition to the instances in the text, refer to I will go down now, and see whether they have done, &c., and if not, I will know.' Gen. xviii. 21. The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, &c.' Gen. xi. 5. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see, &c.' Ps. liii. 3. It may be they will reverence My Son.' Matt. xxi. 37; Luke xx. 13. Seeing a fig-tree afar off, having leaves, He came, if haply He might find, &c.' Mark xi. 13. Simon, lovest thou Me?' John xxi. 15. vid. Ambros. de Fid. v. c. 17. Chrys. in Matt. Hom. 77, 3. Greg. Epp. x. 39. Vid. also the instances, supr. §37. Other passages may be added, such as Gen. xxii. 12. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3. p. 42. But the difficulty of the passage lies in its signifying that there is a sense in which the Father knows what the Son knows not.
[3142] Or. i. 8, n. 2.
[3143] neanieuesthe, vid. Decr. 18 init. de Fug. 4. b.
[3144] tonthoruzete, vid. Decr. 16.
[3145] diephtharmene, §58 fin.
[3146] Luke ii. 52.
[3147] §32, n. 7.
[3148] De Syn. 24, n. 9, vid. supr. §39; Orat. iv. 11.
[3149] It is the doctrine of the [medieval and modern] Church that Christ, as man, was perfect in knowledge from the first, as if ignorance were hardly separable from sin, and were the direct consequence or accompaniment of original sin. Cf. Aug. de Pecc. Mer. ii. 48. As to the limits of Christ's perfect knowledge as man, Petavius observes, that we must consider that the soul of Christ knew all things that are or ever will be or ever have been, but not what are only in posse, not in fact.' Incarn. xi. 3, 6.
[3150] Vid. Gen. xxvi. 13.
[3151] Phil. iii. 13.
[3152] §4, n. 10.
[3153] Or. ii. 36, n. 4.
[3154] Vid. Serm. Maj. de Fid. 18.
[3155] Or. ii. 12, n. 4.
[3156] §31, n. 10.
[3157] It is remarkable, considering the tone of his statements in the present chapter, that here and in what follows Athan. should resolve our Lord's advance in wisdom merely to its gradual manifestation through the flesh [but he says expressly the Manhood advanced in wisdom!'] and it increases the proof that his statements are not to be taken in the letter, and as if fully brought out and settled. Naz. says the same, Ep. ad Cled. 101. p. 86. which is the more remarkable since he is chiefly writing against the Apollinarians, who considered a phanerosis the great end of our Lord's coming; and Cyril. c. Nest. iii. p. 87. Theod. Hor. v. 13. On the other hand, S. Epiphanius speaks of Him as growing in wisdom as man. Hær. 77. p. 1019-24. and S. Ambrose, Incarn. 71-14. Vid. however Ambr. de fid. as quoted supr. §45, n. 2.
[3158] Matt. xvi. 16; xxvii. 54.