We have two answers of Epiphanius to this question, one of which seems to imply that Christ feigned ignorance. "If," says he, "the Son knew the Father, which is the greatest of all, he must know the day of judgment. But it became a Son to honour his Father, that he might shew that he was his own Son."* The other solution implies a base equivocation on the part of our Saviour. "Christ," says he, "did not know the day of judgment; meaning, that it had not taken place, the wicked not being punished." †

We have two answers of Basil to this question, one of which likewise implies a feigned ignorance." Christ," says he, "concealed the day of judgment, because it was not convenient for men to be informed of it." But the other solution implies something else: "The Father knows the day of judgment in the first instance, being the cause of all knowledge." Ambrose again has recourse to a feigned ignorance: Christ, out of the great love that he bore to his disciples, thinking it useless to them to know what they inquired about, chose rather to seem to be ignorant than to deny them." ||

The answer of Austin is peculiar, implying, that our Saviour had recourse to an Hebrew idiom, in which the verb to know, may signify to make others know, as if he had said, I do know myself, but I shall not tell you of it. "Christ,' says he, "did not know the day of judgment, that is, he did not make to know, or discover it to others." ག

Photius seems to have considered ignorance as a property of human nature, and therefore to have thought that our Lord took it upon him of course when he became a man. As a man," says he, "Christ did not reject that ignorance

66

ζήλεσι τείο· δι δε πατέρας, ου βέλονται δεναι τα δε, κλαυθμυρίζονται ὡς μη λαμβανονία· τελευίαιον μενίοι, οι πατέρες κρυπίουσιν εκείνο ὁ κρατουσι, και επιδεικνυνίες τας χείρας κενας τοις παιδιοίς, ίσωσιν αυτά του κλαυθμου. In Marc. xiii. Opera, I. p. 267. (Ρ.)

* Πως ουν ὁ τα μείζω είδως των ελατίονων ὑπερει· ει γινώσκει τοινυν τον πατέρα, γινώσκει πανίως και την ἡμέραν και ουδεν εσιν ου λείπεται κατα γνωσιν ὁ ὑιος. Εδει γαρ αληθώς τον γνησιον ύιον τιμαν τον ίδιον παίερα, ίνα δείξη την γνησιολη/α. Ancoratus, Sect. xvii. Opera, II. p. 23. (P.)

† Ούπω δε εγνω αυτην κατα πραξιν, του εςιν ουπω εκρινεν ετι γαρ ασίβεις ασεβουσι, &c. Hær. Ixix. p. 769. (P.)

Η Δια το μη συμφέρειν ουν τοις ανθρώποις ακουσαι τον καιρον της κρισεως απεσιώπησεν. Ad Eunomium, Hom. iv. p. 770. (P.)

§ Ουτω και το, ουδείς οίδε, την πρωτην είδησιν των τε ονίων και των εσομένων επι τον πατερα αναγονίας, και δια πανίων την πρώτην αιτίαν τοις ανθρωποις ὑποδεικνυνίος ειρησθαι vouloμey. Epist. cccxci. Opera, III. p. 389. (P.)

Mavult enim Dominus nimio in discipulos amore propensus, petentibus his quæ cognitu inutilia judicaret, videri ignorare quod noverat quam negare." De Fide, L. v. C. vii., Opera, IV. p. 205. (P.)

"Hoc enim nescit, quod nescientes facit, id est, quod non ita sciebat, ut tunc discipulis indicaret." De Trinitate, L. i. C, xii., Opera, III. p. 253. (P.)

*

He who took the whole,

which became him as a man. would he refuse to take any part, or not shew that he had taken it?" This looks as if there was no communication between the divinity and the human soul of Christ; and on this supposition the orthodox of the present age endeavour to satisfy themselves and others; saying, that Christ knew all things as God, but was ignorant of many things as man; and this was perhaps the meaning of Athanasius, (if the Fragments on the Psalms be his,) who said, "What he knows by nature as God, he is said to hear according to his human nature, and the economy."†

Damascenus thought that "the human soul of Christ, in consequence of the union and personal identity between. the two natures, knew every thing, even future events." +

Gregory the Great has a very peculiar solution of this difficulty. He says that "Christ was ignorant of the day of judgment with respect to his body the church."§

The most prudent of all the answers, is that of Leontius, who says, "The question concerning Christ's ignorance, is not to be anxiously inquired into." ||

It is Mark who asserts in the strongest manner that Christ was ignorant of the day of judgment; for he expressly says, (xiii. 32,) "neither the Son, but the Father." But Ambrose says, that "the ancient Greeks had not the words neither the Son in that passage."¶

There was at Constantinople, a particular sect of those who maintained that, as a man, Christ did not know the day of judgment. They were therefore called Agnoeta. But the orthodox opinion then was, that he knew it as a man, and Theodosius wrote against them. **

* Ως ανθρωπος δε, εδε την ανθρωποις πρέπεσαν άγνοιαν, ου μεν ουν ουκ ηθελει. Ὃς χαρ δη το όλον ειλε ο λαβειν, πως ἔν τι των περί εκείνο παρητήσατο μη λαβειν, η μη πιςεσθαι iTi wapexo λabwv; Epist. ccxxviii. p. 336. (P.)

† Οντω και άπερ οιδε φυσικώς ὡς Θεός, ταυ]α παλιν ακ8ειν λεγεται δια το ανθρωπινον OIKOVOμinas. Opera, II. p. 522. (P.)

I "At Domini anima, ob unionem cum ipso Deo verbo, ac persoualem identitatem, ut reliquorum miraculorum, sic etiam futurarum, ut dixi, rerum notitiam cousccuta est." Orthod. Fid. L. iii. C. xxi. p. 421. (P.)

66

§ Quia diem et horam neque Filius neque angeli sciunt: omnino recta vestra sanctitas sensit, quoniam non ad eundem Filium, juxta hoc quod caput est, sed juxta corpus ejus nos quod sumus, est certissime referendum." Epist. C. xlii. Opera, II. p. 223. A. (P.)

"Nos autem dicimus non adeo de his subtiliter inquirendum." Leont. De Sectis, Bib. Pat. App. p. 1875, (P.)

¶ "Scriptum est inquiunt, de die autem illo et hora nemo scit, neque angeli cælorum, nec Filius, nisi solus Pater. Primum non habent codices Græci, quod nec Filius scit. Sed et non mirum si et hoc falsarunt, quia scripturas interpolavere divinas." De Fide, L. v. C. vii., Opera, IV. p. 202. (P.)

**«Quum autem privatus Byzantii Theodosius degeret Agnoetarum (sic ab ignoratione dictorum) dogma motum fuit. Nam quia Dominus ait, neminem horam

SECTION III.

Opinions concerning the Body of Christ.

I HAVE had occasion to observe more than once, that Christianity was never quite purged from the errors of the Gnostics; for though the orthodox, who opposed them, advanced different principles, they were insensibly led to several of the same conclusions. Thus the orthodox agreed with the Gnostics in supposing, that the maker of the world was different from the Supreme God, and they came to agree with them at last, in supposing matter to be the cause of all evil. At least they adopted the same maxims and practices with respect to corporeal austerities; and several of them, we shall now find, came very near to them with respect to their doctrine concerning the person of Christ. All the Gnostics thought that the proper Christ was a superangelic being, which had existed long before the birth of Jesus; and in this also the orthodox agreed with them, only supposing that this divine inhabitant of Jesus, was of a higher rank than the Gnostics had made him to be, (which was really departing farther from the genuine simplicity of the gospel,) and they applied the term Christ, not to the divine inhabitant of Jesus only, but to his whole compound person, which was a difference merely verbal.

Lastly, some of the Gnostics thought that Christ had no real body, and, consequently, had not the sensations or feelings of one; but the orthodox principle of the union of the divine nature to the human produced almost the same effect; for some of the Catholics supposed, that in consequence of this union, the body of Christ was exempt from all disagreeable sensations; and indeed this was a natural consequence of their principles; for if there was a real union between the two natures, the sensations of the one must have been communicated to the other; and as it was agreed that the divine nature could not feel pain, the human nature, in order to enjoy the benefit of the union, ought to be exempt from pain also, which we shall find was actually held by Hilary.

In general, however, it was maintained that the human

judicii scire, ne Filium quidem, extra solum Patrem: quæsitum est, an Christus eam ignoraret, ut homo. Theodosius Christum ignorare negabat, et adversus Agnoetas scripsit. Leontius de Sectis, Bib. Pat. App. p. 1861. (P.) See Mosheim, ecles. Hist. (Ct. vi. Pt. ii. C. v. Sect. ix.), 1768, I. p. 472.

nature of Christ was as effectually deserted by the divine nature in the day of suffering, as the Gnostics had ever supposed it to be; and it is very remarkable how uearly the language of the orthodox on this subject approached to that of the Gnostics. Tertullian, in a passage quoted before, says, that "the complaint uttered by Christ on the cross, was from the man, not from the God, to shew that God was impassible, who thus left the Son, and gave the man up to death."* "Let him learn," says Origen, "that the logos, always remaining the logos, feels nothing of the suffering of the body or the soul." † "As the sun-beams," says

Damascenus, 66 are not hurt when a tree on which it shines is cut down, so neither was the divinity of Christ affected when his flesh suffered." The opinion contrary to this, ascribed to the Patripassians, was deemed a heresy. Thus Austin says, "There is another heresy, which says that the divinity in Christ grieved, when his flesh was fixed to the cross." §

It being, therefore, a settled point, that the divine nature of Christ could not feel pain; it is no wonder that some of the orthodox should have agreed with those Gnostics who held that his body, or what had the appearance of a body, had not the wants and weaknesses of other bodies, and was likewise insensible of pain.

Clemens Alexandrinus says, "It would be ridiculous to suppose that the body of our Lord required supplies for its support. He ate not on account of his body, which was supported by divine power, but lest those who conversed with him should have had a suspicion that he was a phantasm, and had only the appearance of a man.' He also says, that he was exempt from all passion, pleasurable

or painful." ||

"

"Hæc vox carnis et animæ, id est hominis, non sermonis, nec spiritûs, id est non Dei, propterea emissa est, ut impassibilem Deum ostenderet, qui sic Filium dereliquit, dum hominem ejus tradidit in mortem." Ad Praxeam, Sect. xxx. p. 518. (P.) See supra, p. 273.

† Μανθανετω ὅτι ὁ λόγος τῇ εσια μενων λογο, εδεν μεν πάσχει ὧν πάσχει το σώμα nå Huxn. Ad Celsum, L. iii. p. 170. (P.)

"Quemadmodum enim si sole arbori illucente securis arborem inciderit, sol tamen infectus, atque ab omni injuria incolumis manet: eodem modo, ac multo etiam magis, impassibilis verbi divinitas, carni personaliter unita, patiente carne incolumis mansit.' Orthod. Fid. L. iii. C. xxvi. Opera, p. 428. (P.)

§ "Alia est hæresis, quæ dicit in Christo divinitatem doluisse, cum figeretur caro ejus in cruce." Catalogus Her. Opera, VI. p. 29. (P.)

|| Επι μεν το σωληρος το σώμα απαιζειν ὡς σωμα τας αναγκαιας υπηρεσιας εις διαμονην, γελως αν είη εφαγεν γαρ ου δια το σώμα, δυναμει συνεχόμενον άγια αλλά ὡς μη τις συνονίας άλλως περι αυτε φρονειν ὑπεισελθοι· ὥσπερ αμέλει ύςερον δοκήσει τινες αυτον πεφανερώσθαι ὑπελαβον· αυτος δε ἀπαξαπλως απαθης ην, εἰς ὃν εδεν παρεισδυεται κινημα παθητικον, εἰς ἡδονη, είς λίπη. Strom. vi. p. 649. (Ρ.)

Hilary maintained that the body of Christ was impassible. "You will not believe," says he, " impious heretic, but that Christ felt when the nails pierced his hands. I ask, why did not the children," meaning the three in Daniel, "fear the fire, or feel pain?"* Other respectable writers maintained that the body of Christ was free from the affections of other human bodies. Ambrose says, "It was artifice in Christ to pretend to be hungry." “In t the divine and holy body of Christ," says Cyril of Alexandria, "there are no passions; and being the property of the logos, inhabiting it, and united to it, it is perfectly sanctified." Christ," says Cassian, "did not feel carnal desire."§

66

Anastasius Sinaita makes a difference between common flesh and the flesh of Christ, and says that, on this account, Gregory Nazianzen scrupled not to say that the flesh of Christ was God-like. ||

Notwithstanding it was so much a settled point with the ancient fathers, that the divine nature could not suffer or feel pain; yet during the Nestorian controversy, it was customary for the orthodox to hold a different language, and to say that the logos itself was crucified, suffered, and even died. This was in answer to Nestorius, who maintained that there were two distinct natures in Christ, the divine and the human, and that it could only be the human nature in Christ that suffered. The language which the orthodox made use of in answer to him was very extraordinary, and often shocking. Cassian says in so many words, that "God was crucified."¶ "If any one," says Cyril of Alexandria, " does not confess that the word of God suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, being made the first

"Non vis impie hæretice, ut transeunte palmas clavo Christus non doluerit, neque vulnus illud nullam acerbitatem teli compungentis intulerit. Interrogo cur pueri ignes non timuerint, nec doluerint?" De Trinitate, L. x. p. 255._ (P.)

"Videte artem Domini qua adversarium fraude circumvenit. Post multa jejunia esurire se simulat, ut diabolum, quem jejunando jam vicerat, iterum esuriendo solicitet." Serm. xxxvii. Opera, V. p. 53. (P.)

† Αλλ' ουκ εν τε τῳ θείῳ καὶ ἁγιῳ το Χριςε σωματι τοιείον τι κεκινήσθαι φαμεν, αλλ' ην άπαντα φρεδα και εκτοπωλαία των παθών, και ὡς ίδιον γεγονός τε ένωθεντο αυτῷ evolksvlog λoys kalethelei tov dyiasμov. Contra Julianum, L. viii. Juliani Opera, II. p. 287. (P.)

§ "Non enim ignitos aculeos concupiscentiæ carnalis expertus est." Coll. v. Opera, p. 392. (P.)

"Est enim caro et non caro.-Et ideo Gregorius in theologia celeberrimus non veretur dicere carnem Domini ucov, id est, simul Deum." In Hexemeron. Bib. Pat. App. p. 1407. (P.)

"Ergo nesscee est ut Christum affixum esse in cruce deneges; aut Deum affixum esse fatearis." De Incarnatione, L. iii. C. x. p. 995. (P.)