Ignorance Assumed Economically by Our Lord

 "IT is plain that He knows the hour of the end of all things," says Athan., "as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance belongs to man." Orat. iii. § 43, and Serap. ii. 9.

 S. Basil, on the general question being asked him, of our Lord's infirmities, by S. Amphilochius, says that he shall give him the answer he had "heard from boyhood 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 about His ignorance which is mentioned below. And S. Cyril, "Let them [the heretics] strip the Word openly of the flesh and what it implies, and destroy outright the whole Economy [Incarnation], and then they will clearly see the Son as God; or, if they shudder at this as impious and absurd, why blush they at the conditions of the manhood, and determine to find fault with what especially befits the economy of the flesh?" 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 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 when 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. iii. c. Nest.. (Canis. i. p. 579).

 Though our Lord, as having two natures, had a human as well as a divine knowledge, and though that human knowledge was not only limited because human, but liable to ignorance in matters in which greater knowledge was possible; yet it is the received doctrine, that in fact He was not ignorant even in His human nature, according to its capacity, since it was from the first taken out of its original and natural condition, and "deified" by its union with the Word. As then (infra art. Specialties, part 5) His manhood was created, yet He may not be called a creature even in His manhood, and as ( ibid . part 6) His flesh was in its abstract nature a servant, yet He is not a servant in fact, even as regards the flesh; so, though He took on Him a soul which left to itself would have been partially ignorant, as other human souls, yet as ever enjoying the Beatific Vision from its oneness with the Word, it never was ignorant in fact, but knew all things which human soul can know. vid. Eulog. ap. Phot. 230, p. 884. As Pope Gregory expresses it, "Novit in naturâ, non ex naturâ humanitatis." Epp. x. 39. However, this view of the sacred subject was not received by the Church till after S. Athanasius's day, and it cannot be denied that he and others of the most eminent Fathers use language which primâ facie is inconsistent with it. They certainly seem to impute ignorance to our Lord as man, as Athan. in the passage cited above. Of course it is not meant that our Lord's soul had the same perfect knowledge which He has as God. This was the assertion of a General of the Hermits of S. Austin at the time of the Council of Basil, when the proposition was formally condemned, "animam Christi Deum videre tam clarè et intensè quàm clarè et intensè Deus videt seipsum." vid. Berti Opp. t. 3, p. 42. Yet Fulgentius had said, "I think that in no respect was full knowledge of the Godhead wanting to that Soul, whose Person is one with the Word, whom Wisdom did so assume that it is itself that same Wisdom," ad Ferrand. Resp. iii. p. 223, ed. 1639; though, ad Trasimund. i. 7, he speaks of ignorance attaching to our Lord's human nature.

 S. Basil takes the words [ oud' ho huios, ei me ho pater ], to mean, "nor does the Son know except the Father knows," or "nor would the Son but for," etc., or "nor does the Son know, except as the Father knows." "The cause of the Son's knowing is from the Father." Ep. 236, 2. S. Gregory alludes to the same interpretation, [ oud' ho huios e hos hoti ho pater ], "Since the Father knows, therefore the Son." Naz. Orat. 30. 16. S. Irenæus seems to adopt the same when he says, "The Son was not ashamed to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father;" Hær. ii. 28, n. 6, as Naz. supr. uses the words [ epi ten aitian anapherestho ]. And so Photius distinctly, [ eis archen anapheretai ]. "'Not the Son, but the Father,' that is, whence knowledge comes to the Son as from a fountain." Epp. p. 342, ed. 1651.

 Origen considers such answer an economy. "He who knows what is in the heart of men, Christ Jesus, as John also has taught us in his Gospel, asks, yet is not ignorant. But since He has now taken on Him man, He adopts all that is man's, and among them the asking questions. Nor is it strange that the Saviour should do so, since the very God of all, accommodating Himself to the habits of man, as a father might to his son, inquires, for instance, 'Adam, where art thou?' and 'Where is Abel, thy brother?'" in Matt. t. 10, § 14; vid. also Pope Gregory and Chrysost. infr.

 S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and Pope S. Gregory in addition to the instances in Orat. iii. § 50, refer to "I will go down now, and see whether they have done, etc. and if not, I will know ." Gen. xviii. 21. "The Lord came down to see the city and the tower," etc. Gen. xi. 5. "God looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see," etc. 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," etc. 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 Athan. Orat. iii. § 37. Other passages may be added, such as Gen. xxii. 12. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3, p. 42. But the difficulty of Mar. xiii. 32 lies in its signifying that there is a sense in which the Father knows what the Son knows not. Petavius, after S. Augustine, meets this by explaining it to mean that our Lord, as sent from the Father on a mission, was not to reveal all things, but to observe a silence and profess an ignorance on those points which it was not good for His brethren to know. As Mediator and Prophet He was ignorant. He refers in illustration of this view to such texts as, "I have not spoken of Myself ; but the Father which sent Me, He gave Me commandment what I should say and what I should speak ... Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I speak." John xii. 49, 50.

 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 naturâ;" 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 Ath. seems, Orat ii. § 55 fin., to make His infirmities altogether imputative, not real; "He is said to be infirm, not being infirm Himself," as if showing 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;" Orat. iii. § 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 § 45, that "as showing 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 show that as man He knows not," § 46; viz. 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 shown 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. Trin. x. 8.) In the latter Ep. S. Basil suggests that our Lord "economises by a feigned ignorance." And S. Cyril. in Thesaur. l. c. (in spite of his strong language ibid. p. 221), "The Son knows all things, though economically He says He is ignorant of something," 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: "God would not make it known even to the Son Himself, were He a mere man upon earth, as they say, and not having it in His nature to be God." p. 629. And S. Hilary arguing that He must as man know the day of judgment, for His then coming is as man, says, "Since He is Himself a sacrament, let us see whether He be ignorant in the things which He knows not. For if in the other respects a profession of ignorance is not an intimation of not knowing, so here too He is not ignorant of what He knows not. For since His ignorance, in respect that all treasures of knowledge lie hid in Him, is rather an economy (dispensation) than an ignorance, you have a cause why He might be ignorant without an actual intimation of not knowing." 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 Hilary, saying, "Hoc nescit quod nescientes facit." Trin. i. n. 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 distinctly: "The Son which took on Him the flesh, assumed our affections, so as to say that He knew not with our ignorance; not that He was ignorant of anything Himself, for, though He seemed to be man in truth of body, yet He was the life and light, and virtue went out of Him," etc. de Fid. v. 222. And so Cæsarius, Qu. 20. and Photius Epp. p. 336, etc. Chrysost. in Matth. 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, 24.

 The expression, Orat. iii. § 48, etc. "for our sake," which repeatedly occurs, surely implies that there was something economical in our Lord's profession of ignorance. He used it with a purpose, not as a mere plain fact or doctrine. And so S. Cyril, "He says that He is ignorant, for our sake and among us, as man," Thes. p. 221: "economically effecting, [ oikonomon ], something profitable and good." ibid. And again, after stating that there was an objection, and paralleling His words with His question to S. Philip about the loaves, he says, "Knowing as God the Word, He can, as man, be ignorant." p. 223. "It is not a sign of ignorance, but of wisdom, for it was inexpedient that we should know it." Ambros. de Fid. v. 209. S. Chrysostom seems to say the same, denying that the Son was ignorant, Hom. 77, 1. And Theophylact, "Had He said, 'I know, but I will not tell you,' they had been cast down, as if despised by Him; but now in saying 'not the Son but the Father only,' He hinders their asking ... for how can the Son be ignorant of the day?" Theophyl. in loc. Matt. "Often little children see their fathers holding something in their hands, and ask for it, but they will not give it. Then the children cry as not receiving it. At length the fathers hide what they have got and show their empty hands to their children, and so stop their crying ... For our profit hath He hid it." ibid. in loc. Marc. "For thee He is ignorant of the hour and day of judgment, though nothing is hid from the Very Wisdom ... But He economises this because of thy infirmity," etc. supr. Basil, Ep. 8, 6.

 It is the doctrine of the 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. "That ignorance," says S. Austin, "I in nowise can suppose existed in that Infant, in whom the Word was made flesh to dwell among us; nor can I suppose that that infirmity of the mind belonged to Christ as a babe, which we see in babes. For in consequence of it, when they are troubled with irrational emotions, no reason, no command, but pain sometimes and the alarm of pain restrains them," etc. de Pecc. Mer. ii. 48.

 As to the limits of Christ's perfect knowledge as man, 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." Petav. Incarn. xi. 3, 6.

 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 (secundùm hominem). But now not only do I not presume to say so, but I even anathematise my former opinion expressed on this point, because it may not be said, that the Lord of the Prophets was ignorant even as He was man." ap. Sirmond. 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, as contained adv. Fel. 6, Bibi. Patr. Max. t. xiv. p. 244. The Ed. Ben. observes, Ath. Orat. iii. § 44, 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.

 The mode in which Athan. expresses himself, is as if he only ascribed apparent ignorance to our Lord's soul, and 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?'" Bibl. Patr. Max. t. xiv. p. 244. The Agnoetæ have been noticed above.

 It is remarkable, considering the tone of his statements, Orat. iii. § 42-53, that there and in what follows upon them, Athan. should resolve our Lord's advance in wisdom merely into its gradual manifestation through the flesh; 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. Hær. v. 13. On the other hand, S. Epiphanius speaks of Him as growing in wisdom as man. Hær. 77, pp. 1019-24, and S. Ambrose, Incarn. 71-74. Vid. however Ambr. de Fid. as quoted supr. p. 167. The Ed. Ben. in Ambr. Incarn. considers the advancement of knowledge spoken of to be that of the "scientia experimentalis" alluded to in Hebr. v. 8, which is one of the three kinds of knowledge possessed by Christ as man. vid. Berti Opp. t. 3, p. 41. Petavius, however, omits the consideration of this knowledge, (which S. Thomas at first denied in our Lord, and in his Summa ascribes to Him,) as lying beyond his province. "De hac lite neutram in partem pronuntiare audeo," says Petavius, "hujusmodi enim quæstiones ad Scholas relegandæ sunt; de quibus nihil apud antiquos liquidi ac definiti reperitur." Incarn. xi. 4, § 9. Illustrations

 "Is there any cause of fear," says Athan., "lest, because the offspring from men are one in substance, the Son, by being called One in substance, be Himself considered as a human offspring too? perish the thought! not so; but the explanation is easy. For the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom; whence we learn the impassibility ([ apathes ]) and indivisibility ([ ameriston ]) of such a generation from the Father. For not even is man's word part of him, nor proceeds from him according to passion; much less God's Word; whom the Father has declared to be His own Son: lest, on the other hand, if we merely heard of 'Word,' we should suppose Him, such as is the word of man, unsubsistent ([ anupostaton ]); therefore we are told that He is Son, that we may acknowledge Him to be a living Word and a substantive ([ enousion ]) Wisdom. Accordingly as in saying 'Offspring,' we have no human thoughts, and, though we know God to be a Father, we entertain no material ideas concerning Him, but while we listen to these illustrations and terms, we think suitably of God, for He is not as man, so in like manner, when we hear of 'consubstantial,' we ought to transcend all sense, and, according to the Proverb, understand by the understanding that is set before us ; so as to know, that not by the Father's will, but in eternal truth, is He genuine Son of the Father, as Life from Fountain, and Radiance from Light. Else why should we understand 'Offspring' and 'Son,' in no corporeal way, while we conceive of 'One in substance' as after the manner of bodies? especially since these terms are not here used about different subjects, but of whom 'offspring' is predicated, of Him is predicated 'one in substance also.'" Syn. § 41, 42.

 "For whereas men beget with passion, so again when at work they work upon an existing subject matter, and otherwise cannot make. Now if we do not understand creation in a human way, when we attribute it to God, much less seemly is it to understand generation in a human way, or to give a corporeal sense to Consubstantial; instead, as we ought, of receding from things generate, casting away human images, nay, all things sensible, and ascending to the Father, lest in ignorance we rob the Father of the Son and rank Him among His own creatures." Syn. § 51.

 S. Athanasius's doctrine is, that, God containing in Himself all perfection, whatever is excellent in one created thing above another, is found in its perfection in him. If then such generation as radiance from light is more perfect than that of children from parents, that belongs, and transcendently, to the All-perfect God.

 The question is not, whether in matter of fact, in the particular case, the rays would issue after, and not with, the initial existence of the luminous body; for the illustration is not used to show how such a thing may be, or to give an instance of it, but to convey to the mind a correct idea of what it is proposed to teach in the Catholic doctrine.

 Athanasius guards against what is defective in his illustration, Orat. iii. § 5, (e.g. of an Emperor and his image,) but, even independent of such explanation, a mistake as to his meaning would be impossible; and the passage affords a good instance of the imperfect and partial character of all illustrations of the Divine Mystery. What it is taken to symbolise is the unity of the Father and Son, (for the Image is not a Second Emperor but the same, vid. Sabell. Greg. 6,) still no one who bowed before the Emperor's Statue can be supposed to have really worshipped it; whereas our Lord is the Object of supreme worship, which terminates in Him, as being really one with Him whose Image He is.

 "Whoso uses the particle as, implies, not identity, nor equality, but a likeness of the matter in question, viewed in a certain respect. This we may learn from our Saviour Himself, when He says 'As Jonas,'" etc. Orat. iii. 22, 23. "Even when the analogy is solid and well founded," says a Protestant writer, "we are liable to fall into error, if we suppose it to extend farther than it really does ... Thus because a just analogy has been discerned between the metropolis of a country, and the heart in the animal body, it has been sometimes contended that its increased size is a disease, that it may impede some of its most important functions, or even be the means of its dissolution." Copleston on Predestination, p. 129. The principle here laid down, in accordance with S. Athan., of course admits of being made an excuse for denying the orthodox meaning of "Word, Wisdom, etc.," under pretence that the figurative terms are not confined by the Church within their proper limits; but here the question is about the matter of fact, which interpretation is right, the Church's or the objector's? Thus another writer says, "The most important words of the N. T. have not only received an indelibly false stamp from the hands of the old Schoolmen, but those words having, since the Reformation, become common property in the language of the country, are, as it were, thickly incrusted with the most vague, incorrect, and vulgar notions ... Any word ... if habitually repeated in connection with certain notions, will appear to reject all other significations, as it were, by a natural power." Heresy and Orthod. pp. 21, 47. Elsewhere he speaks of words "which were used in a language now dead to represent objects ... which are now supposed to express figuratively something spiritual and quite beyond the knowledge and comprehension of man." P. 96. Of course Athan. assumes that since the figures and parallels given us in Scripture have but a partial application, therefore there is given us from above also an interpreter in order to apply them. Vid. art. Economical .

 Again, just as S. Athan. says, "A figure is but a parallel, ... hence if we too become one, as the Son in the Father, we shall not therefore be as the Son, nor equal to Him, for He and we are but parallel," so again Dr. Copleston thus proceeds, "Analogy does not mean the similarity of two things, but the similarity or sameness of two relations ... Things most unlike and discordant in their nature may be strictly analogous to one another. Thus a certain proposition may be called the basis of a system ... it serves a similar office and purpose ... the system rests upon it; it is useless to proceed with the argument till this is well established: if this were removed, the system must fall." On Predest. pp. 122, 123.