the words of Sophronius of Jerusalem are equally distinct1. And like these easterns, so the western, Pope Gregory, in his correspondence with Eulogius regards the question at issue to be our Lord's ignorance as man. This he, with Eulogius, is emphatic in denying. They both admit that humanity as such, and therefore Christ's humanity by itself, would be ignorant. But they say that in fact, as united to the Godhead in one person, its ignorance was removed. If He was ignorant 'ex humanitate,' He was not so 'in humanitate.' If He professes ignorance as man He is speaking as Head for the members and economically.

It would appear that this particular matter was never specifically considered by any oriental council. But the Agnoetae certainly formed a sect of their own and were reckoned as heretics, with the special characteristic of affirming the limitation of knowledge in Christ. We notice however that the orthodox Leontius emphatically takes the side of the Agnoetae, and declares, with an exaggeration which is no doubt somewhat strange, that almost all the fathers held to our Lord's human ignorance.

The following passages should be examined in this connexion :

LEONTIUS OF BYZANTIUM, de Sectis, act. x. 3 (P. G. lxxxvi. p. 1261) 'Now the Agnoetae believe just as the Theodosians with this difference, that the Theodosians deny that the humanity of Christ was ignorant and the Agnoetae affirm it. For they say, "He was in

1

Epist. Syn. ad Sergium (P. G. lxxxvii. 3, p. 3192 d) åyvoeîv Tòv Xplotòv οὐ καθὸ θεὸς ὑπῆρχεν ἀίδιος, ἀλλὰ καθὸ γέγονεν κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ἄνθρωπος.

all points like us.

And if we are ignorant, it is plain that He too was ignorant. And He Himself in the Gospels says, no man knoweth the day nor the hour, neither the Son, but the Father only. And again, where have ye laid Lazarus?" All these utterances, they say, are signs of ignorance. It is said in reply that Christ spoke these things "economically," to divert the disciples from learning from Him the hour of the end. Observe, they say, after the resurrection, when He is again asked by them, He no longer says neither the Son, but none of you1. But we say that we must not be too exact on these matters (οὐ δεῖ πάνυ ἀκριβολογεῖν περὶ TOÚTOV). On this principle neither did the Synod 3 busy τούτων). itself with this sort of opinion (οὐδὲ ἡ σύνοδος τοιοῦτο ἐπολυπραγμόνησε δόγμα), but it must be known that most of the Fathers, yes almost all, appear to say that He was ignorant. For if He is said to have been of one substance with us in all respects, and we are ignorant, it is plain that He too was ignorant. And the Scripture says about Him, He advanced in stature and wisdom; that is plainly, learning what He was ignorant of.' Cf. Act. v. 6.

EULOGIUS, the patriarch of Alexandria, is quoted by Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 230 (P. G. ciii. pp. 1080 ff.), as writing against the Agnoetae to the following effect. He denies that Christ was ignorant either in His manhood or (still more) in His Godhead. He gives 'explanations' of the texts cited for the opposite view. Christ may have been speaking economically; or, again, nothing hinders us from interpreting His words Kar' àvaþopáv, i. e. in such a way as to refer them back from the Head who spoke them to the members of the body

Acts i. 7 'it is not for you, &c.'

3 The reference appears to be to Chalcedon.

2 i. e. Leontius.

for whom He spoke. He cried out as deserted in our name. So He may have professed ignorance in our name. ‘No man can, without recklessness, ascribe real ignorance to Him either in His Godhead or in His manhood (οὔτε γὰρ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα οὔτε κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα τὴν ἄγνοιαν λέγειν ἐπ ̓ αὐτοῦ θράσους ἐπισφαλούς ἠλευθέ ρωται). We may indeed ascribe ignorance ideally to Christ's humanity, qua humanity considered by itself (which it was not), like Gregory the theologian'. He adds,

'If some of the fathers admitted the asserted ignorance in the manhood of our Saviour, they did not advance this as a positive opinion, but with a view to warding off the madness of the Arians; for as the Arians ascribed the human affections to the Godhead, they thought it a better expedient to refer them to the manhood than to allow them to divert them to the Godhead. Not but what if any one were to say that they too spoke anaphorically [i. e. of Christ for us], he will be accepting the safer explanation (εἰ καί τινες τῶν πατέρων τὴν ἄγνοιαν ἐπὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα παρεδέξαντο ἀνθρωπότητος, οὐχ ὡς δόγμα τοῦτο προήνεγκαν, ἀλλὰ τὴν τῶν ̓Αρειανῶν μανίαν ἀντιφερόμενοι, οἳ καὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα πάντα ἐπὶ τὴν θεότητα τοῦ μονογενοῦς μετέφερον, ὡς ἂν κτίσμα τὸν ἄκτιστον λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ παραστήσωσιν, οἰκονομικώτερον ἐδοκίμασαν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ταῦτα φέρειν ἢ παραχωρεῖν ἐκείνους μεθέλκειν ταῦτα κατὰ τῆς θεότητος. εἰ δὲ κατὰ ἀναφορὰν κἀκείνους δοίη ταῦτά τις εἴπειν, τὸν εὐσεβέστερον λόγον ἀποδέξεται).

GREGORY THE GREAT, Epist. x. 39 (ad Eulogium,Patr. Lat. lxxvii. p. 1097), says that the text St. Mark xiii. 32 'Is most certainly to be referred to the Son, not as 1 See passage quoted, p. 126.

He is Head, but as to His body which we are (non ad eundem Filium iuxta hoc quod caput est, sed iuxta corpus eius quod sumus nos, est certissime referendum).' He adds that Christ 'in natura quidem humanitatis novit diem et horam iudicii, sed tamen hunc non ex natura humanitatis novit: quod ergo in ipsa novit, non ex ipsa novit, quia Deus homo factus diem et horam iudicii per deitatis suae potentiam novit.'

Like Theodoret's in earlier days, the protest of Leontius against explaining away our Lord's words is isolated. Thus, the great Greek schoolman, John of Damascus, who in the eighth century formulated the theology of the Greeks, repudiates as Nestorian any assertion of real increase in our Lord's knowledge as man, or real limitation in His knowledge of the future.

JOHN DAMASCENE, de Fide Orthod. iii. 12-23: His human nature by its own essence does not possess the knowledge of the future; 'but the soul of the Lord, because of its unity with the person of God the Word and its hypostatic identity, was enriched, as I said, as with the other divine miracles, so with the knowledge of the future (διὰ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν θεὸν λόγον ἕνωσιν καὶ τὴν ὑποστατικὴν ταυτότητα κατεπλούτησεν, ὡς ἔφην, μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν θεοσημειῶν καὶ τὴν τῶν μελλόντων γνῶσιν).

He goes on to determine that it is Nestorian to call Christ by the name ' servant (doûλos) of the Lord1,' and

1 St. Thomas (Summa, p. iii. qu. 20. art. 1) allows the expression. So Petavius (de Incarn. vii. 7-9) and others. Other western theologians have agreed more or less decisively with John of Damascus that our Lord, as man, is not to be called servus, chiefly because the expression was insisted upon by the Adoptionists and repudiated by Pope Hadrian I and other opponents of this heresy: see de Lugo, de Myst. Incarn. xxviii. 2.

that in spite of the frequent use of the similar phrase παῖς κυρίου in the Acts of the Apostles, of which he takes no notice; and Nestorian, again, to attribute real intellectual growth to our Lord in His manhood.

'He is said to advance in wisdom and stature and grace, because He grows in fact in stature, and through His growth in stature, brings out into exhibition the wisdom which already existed in Him. . . . But those who say that He grew in wisdom and grace, as (really) receiving increase in these, deny (in fact) that the flesh was united to the Word from the first moment of its existence, nor do they allow the union to be hypostatic, but assent to Nestorius, . . . For if the flesh from the first moment of its existence was united to the Word of God, or rather subsisted in Him, and possessed hypostatic identity with Him, how could it have been otherwise than perfectly enriched with all wisdom and grace? (προκόπτειν δὲ λέγεται σοφίᾳ καὶ ἡλικίᾳ καὶ χάριτι, τῇ μὲν ἡλικίᾳ αὔξων, διὰ δὲ τῆς αὐξήσεως τῆς ἡλικίας τὴν ἐνυπάρχουσαν αὐτῷ σοφίαν εἰς φανέρωσιν ἄγων . . . οἱ δὲ προκόπτειν αὐτὸν λέγοντες σοφίᾳ καὶ χάριτι ὡς προσθήκην τούτων δεχόμενον οὐκ ἐξ ἄκρας ὑπάρξεως τῆς σαρκὸς γεγενῆσθαι τὴν ἕνωσιν λέγουσιν, οὐδὲ τὴν καθ ̓ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν πρεσβεύουσι, Νεστορίῳ δὲ τῷ ματαιόφρονι πειθόμενοι, σχετικὴν ἕνωσιν καὶ ψιλὴν ἕνωσιν τερατεύονται· εἰ γὰρ ἀληθῶς ἡνώθη τῷ θεοῦ λόγῳ ἡ σὰρξ ἐξ ἄκρας ὑπάρξεως μᾶλλον δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ ὑπῆρξε καὶ τὴν ὑποστατικὴν ἔσχε ταυτότητα, πῶς οὐ τελείως κατεπλούτησε πᾶσαν σοφίαν καὶ χάριν ;)

Here is abstract reasoning, as so often in theology and philosophy, winning its triumph over facts. In the west the Agnoetic view was revived by the Nestorianizing Adoptionists, and treated therefore, in the west as in the east, as simply a fragment of Nestorianism.

M