§ 3.

The anti-Arian writers who admit a human

ignorance.

It has been worth while dwelling at length on these passages, not only because they indicate the absence of any original tradition on the subject we are dealing with, but also because they represent, strange as it may seem, the highest level of ecclesiastical thought on this subject for a long time to come. In the third and fourth centuries the theological attention of the Church was diverted from the Incarnation proper to the doctrine of the Trinity. The conflict was against Unitarian Sabellianism on the one hand, which would have annihilated the 'distinction of persons,' and the extreme subordinationism on the other which was countenanced by some language of Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, and which afforded an excuse for what was none the less the essentially different Arian position according to which the Son was no more than the highest of the creatures 1. As a consequence of this long and complicated controversy, the Trinitarian terminology was arrived at by which the Church affirmed the existence of three 'persons' (Toσráveis or personae) coeternal, coequal and

1 of recent years a fresh interest has been given to the question of the origin and meaning of Arianism, by the writings of Gwatkin and Harnack. The summary of Robertson in Athanasius (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers) pp. xxi-xxx. is admirable. One cannot but hope that it may exist shortly in a more accessible form.

coessential in the one essence or substance of the Godhead. This controversy was carried on mainly as regards the person of the Son, and as a result no aspect of His essential relation to the Father was left untouched; but very little was contributed as regards the doctrine of His incarnation, or specially as regards His human consciousness. When the Arians however produced texts such as 'Jesus increased in wisdom,' 'of that day and hour knoweth no man, neither the Son,' as evidence of the essential inferiority of the Son, Athanasius referred them to our Lord's humanity, on the assumption that in respect of His humanity there was a real growth and a real limitation of knowledge. This assumption-though it may be said to have been made incidentally, by way of setting aside the proposed texts as irrelevant to the discussion of the Godhead, rather than by way of positive treatment, and though it is not made without vacillation-is still clearly made by Athanasius, and it is implied that it is a common assumption of Churchmen. A concession, similar to Athanasius' assumption of a human ignorance, is to be found in Gregory of Nazianzus, but it is not very clear: and St. Basil, while not himself assenting, allows such a concession of human ignorance. The passages referred to are as follows:

ATHANASIUS, in Orat. adv. Arian. iii. 51-54, comments on St. Luke ii. 52 πρоéкоttev tŷ σopíą. His chief contention is that this is no advance of the Word or Wisdom as such, but only in respect of the humanity He assumed: διὰ τοῦτο, ὡς προείπομεν, οὐχ ἡ σοφία, ᾗ σοφία ἐστίν, αὐτὴ καθ ̓ ἑαυτὴν προέκοπτεν· ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἐν τῇ

σοφίᾳ προέκοπτεν, ὑπεραναβαῖνον κατ ̓ ὀλίγον τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ θεοποιούμενον καὶ ὄργανον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς θεότητος καὶ τὴν ἔκλαμψιν αὐτῆς γινόμενον καὶ φαινό μενον πᾶσιν. διὸ οὐδὲ εἶπεν ὁ λόγος προέκοπτεν, ἀλλὰ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ὅπερ ὄνομα γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος ὁ κύριος ἐκλήθη, ὡς εἶναι τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως τὴν προκοπὴν οὕτως ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν εἴπομεν. Here Athanasius does recognize a human advance: more than a mere increased manifestation of the Godhead in the human body which he had spoken of in the previous chapter (52), τοῦ σώματος ἄρα ἐστὶν ἡ προκοπή· αὐτοῦ γὰρ προκόπτοντος, προέκοπτεν ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἡ φανέρωσις τῆς θεότητος τοῖς ὁρῶσιν. He also recognizes that the subject of the advance is the eternal person, because He appropriated or identified with Himself the human nature which He assumed. Thus speaking of the human states of trouble, fear, progress, &c., he says οὐκ ἦν ἴδια φύσει τοῦ λόγου ταῦτα, ᾗ λόγος ἦν, ἐν δὲ τῇ τοιαῦτα πασχούσῃ σαρκὶ ἦν ὁ λόγος (c. 55); οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδὲ ἔξωθεν ὄντος τοῦ λόγου ἐγίνετο ἡ προκοπή, οἵα ἐστίν, ἣν εἰρήκαμεν· ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ἦν ἡ σὰρξ ἡ προκόπτουσα, καὶ αὐτοῦ λέγεται (c. 53); ἀνάγκη ἐν πάσχοντι σώματι καὶ κλαίοντι καὶ κάμνοντι γενομένου αὐτοῦ, αὐτοῦ λέγεσθαι μετὰ τοῦ σώματος καὶ ταῦτα ἅπερ ἐστὶν ἴδια τῆς σαρκός (c. 56). Compare the language of the Epistle to Epictetus, c. 6, as to the Word appropriating” (ιδιοποιεῖσθαι) the properties of the body, as being His own body.

...

His language as to St. Mark xiii. 32 (οὐδεὶς οἶδεν . . . οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός) is perhaps more explicit. First, it is not qua Son that Christ is ignorant. See Orat. adv. Ar. iii. 44 διὰ τοῦτο καὶ περὶ ἀγγέλων λέγων, οὐκ εἴρηκεν ἐπαναβαίνων ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἀλλ ̓ ἐσιώπησε, δεικνὺς

κατὰ δύο ταῦτα ὅτι, εἰ τὸ πνεῦμα οἶδεν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὁ λόγος, ᾗ λόγος ἐστίν, οἶδεν, παρ' οὗ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα λαμβάνει καὶ ὅτι, περὶ τοῦ πνεύματος σιωπήσας, φανερὸν πεποίηκεν ὅτι περὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης αὐτοῦ λειτουργίας ἔλεγεν οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός.

But the Christians recognize that this expression 'the Son knows not' is spoken by Christ truly as man (c. 45); οἱ δὲ φιλόχριστοι καὶ χριστοφόροι γινώσκομεν ὡς οὐκ ἀγνοῶν ὁ λόγος ᾗ λόγος ἐστὶν ἔλεγεν οὐκ οἶδα, οἶδε γάρ' ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον δεικνὺς ὅτι τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἴδιόν ἐστι τὸ ἀγνοεῖν καὶ ὅτι σάρκα ἀγνοοῦσαν ἐνεδύσατο, ἐν ᾗ ὢν σαρκικῶς ἔλεγεν οὐκ οἶδα. Cf. c. 43 ὡς μὲν λόγος γινώσκει ὡς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἀγνοεῖ . . . εἰδὼς ὡς θεός, ἀγνοεῖ σαρκικῶς. οὐκ εἴρηκε γοῦν, οὐδὲ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ οἶδεν, ἵνα μὴ ἡ θεότης ἀγνοοῦσα φαίνηται· ἀλλ ̓ ἁπλῶς οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός· ἵνα τοῦ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενομένου υἱοῦ ἡ ἄγνοια ᾖ. C. 46 ὥσπερ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος μετ ̓ ἀνθρώπων πεινᾷ καὶ διψᾷ καὶ πάσχει, οὕτως μετὰ μὲν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὡς ἄνθρωπος οὐκ οἶδεν, θεϊκῶς δὲ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ὢν λόγος καὶ σοφία οἶδεν.

In c. 47 however he assimilates our Lord's profession of ignorance to St. Paul's, when he says 'whether in the body or out of the body, I know not' (see 2 Cor. xii. 2), and he assumes that St. Paul really knew the conditions under which the revelation was given to him, though he concealed his knowledge. Thus in this passage he seems to make our Lord's profession of ignorance only 'economic.' On the other hand in c. 48 he reaffirms that in professing ignorance Christ did not lie, 'for He spoke humanlyas man I do not know (καὶ οὔτε ἐψεύσατο τοῦτο εἰρηκώς· ἀνθρωπίνως γὰρ εἶπεν, ὡς ἄνθρωπος, οὐκ οἶδα).

Agreeably to the hesitation exhibited by Athanasius in these passages, when he is commenting on our Lord's

questions, where have ye laid him?' 'how many loaves have ye1?' he both admits a possible ignorance as appertaining to our Lord's manhood, and at the same time explains the questions as not in fact involving ignorance. See Orat. adv. Αr. iii. 37 ὅταν ἐρωτᾷ ὁ κύριος οὐκ ἀγνοῶν . . . ἐπερωτᾷ, ἀλλὰ γινώσκων ὅπερ ἠρώτα αὐτός ... ἂν δὲ φιλονεικῶσιν ἔτι διὰ τὸ ἐπερωτᾷν, ἀκουέτωσαν ὅτι ἐν μὲν τῇ θεότητι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄγνοια, τῆς δὲ σαρκὸς ἴδιόν ἐστι τὸ ἀγνοεῖν, καθάπερ εἴρηται.

ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN, Orat. xxx. 15, says with reference to St. Mark xiii. 32, ἢ πᾶσιν εὔδηλον ὅτι γινώσκει μὲν ὡς θεός, ἀγνοεῖν δέ φησιν ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἄν τις τὸ φαινόμενον χωρίσῃ τοῦ νοουμένου 2. He notices that ignorance is attributed not to the Son of God' but to ' the Son' simply; and this he says gives us opportunityὥστε τὴν ἄγνοιαν ὑπολαμβάνειν ἐπὶ τὸ εὐσεβέστερον, τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ, μὴ τῷ θείῳ, ταύτην λογιζομένους. But he goes on (c. 16) to suggest that another interpretation is tenable which makes the words mean only that the Son does not know apart from the Father. Indeed, taking the passage as a whole, it must be admitted that he is not disposed to think of our incarnate Lord as in any sense really ignorant.

Previously (c. 5) he has interpreted the subjection of the Son (1 Cor. xv. 28) as the subjection of us in Him : He presents us to God, ἑαυτοῦ ποιούμενος τὸ ἡμέτεροι

1 St. John xi. 34; St. Mark vi. 38.

2 Later writers, Eulogius of Alexandria (see p. 159) and John of Damascus, de Fide Orthod. iii. 21, take Gregory to mean by this phrase that Christ was only ignorant in His humanity, if you consider the humanity as an outward object in abstraction from the Godhead to which in fact you know it to have been united: and this is not an unfair interpretation of the passage.