Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

Since error and ignorance are general and common defects of the human mind vitiated by sin, it is deservedly asked from there whether, just as Christ put on with his body the common bodily penalities of individual men, so likewise he assumed that defect of the human intellect. That this may appear more clearly,

Note 1. Ignorance is distinguished generically as twofold, namely of pure negation and of depraved disposition. Ignorance of pure negation is a certain simple nescience or lack of knowledge of some thing, by which reason we are said to be ignorant also of those things which we are not bound to know; but ignorance of depraved disposition is lack of knowledge of some object concerning which we are bound to form a right judgment. This again is twofold, according to the lack of a twofold science, speculative and practical. Speculative ignorance is that whereby the intellect errs concerning merely speculative things, by which reason it often happens that we err concerning the truth of the speculative sciences. But practical is that whereby the intellect perversely judges about things to be done, pursued, and fled. And this again is twofold, namely invincible and vincible: Invincible is called that whereby one is ignorant of something which is not in his power to know: thus someone invincibly is ignorant of what kind of death he ought to die, unless God reveal it to him. Vincible is that whereby one does not know something which he could know if he applied every moral diligence. This again is twofold, namely affected and gross. The first is that whereby someone spontaneously wills to be ignorant of something, lest namely he be bound to fulfill it, of which David speaks when he says: He would not understand, that he might do well. Gross is that whereby one will not apply study and labor in order to know something which he ought to know. It is asked therefore whether Christ labored under any of these ignorances.

Note 2. Error can be distinguished as twofold; namely one in the intellect, another in sense: which indeed can occur in a twofold way: namely either from some intrinsic indisposition of an external or internal sense, upon whose phantasms' presence and similitude the agent intellect forges intelligible species; or from something extrinsic: thus it often happens that through a corrupted medium, or too great a distance of the object, a thing is thrown off otherwise to the senses than it truly exists in itself. It must be resolved therefore whether Christ was free from all error entirely in both ways.

Note 3. Very many heretics erred most foolishly concerning the knowledge of Christ the Lord; for, as St. Irenaeus relates, book 1 against heresies cap. 17, the Gnostics who were called Valentinians asserted that Christ learned the alphabet under the rod of his teacher, and that he knew very many things not, and that what he knew he had learned from men. These were followed by the Agnoetae, whose leader and father was Themistius, from whom they were also called Themistians, who, as Sophronius relates in the epistle to Sergius, was the father of ignorance, who raved that Christ our true God did not know the day of judgment. Furthermore, that the Agnoetae did not assert that Christ according to the proper nature of the Word and divinity was ignorant of the day of judgment, but only according to his humanity, is evident from Nicephorus, book 18 of his History, cap. 30; for of them he says: They say, that God the Word indeed knows all things, but that the humanity united to him in substance is ignorant of very many things: certainly these say it does not know the day of the consummation of the whole world, as being less than the Father. On account of this, because in the Gospel according to Matthew and Mark it is said: But of that day no one knows, neither the son of man. To these heretics were added Lutherans and Calvinists who, as Canisius notes, book 3 De Maria Deipara, cap. 22, teach not only that Jesus was ignorant of the day of judgment, but also that in boyhood he had an ignorance common with other boys, so that in the manner of the others, just as in body, so also in science and knowledge of things and endowments of mind he grew. Nay their unbridled license of speaking proceeded so far that they attribute error and ignorance even to him now grown up, asserting that he was deceived when, approaching the fig tree and seeking fruit on it, he found only leaves, and when he prayed to the Father in the garden and afterwards corrected his prayer.

Although it is most constant that the Lord truly merited for himself and for us very many divine benefits throughout his whole life; nevertheless Calvin impudently assails this truth with sacrilegious mouth. For he writes in the commentary on chapter 2 to the Philippians: Frivolous is what from this place: For which cause God exalted him etc. the sophists attempt to elicit, namely that Christ first merited for himself, then for others. And a little after, after his manner he re-echoes Satan and devils, and lacerates all theologians with rabid mouth saying: Who does not see that this is suggested by Satan, that Christ suffered on the cross that he might acquire by the merit of his work what he did not have? Who denies that those cry out at the instigation of Satan that Christ merited glory for himself before salvation for us? He adds: Therefore let readers learn to detest the Sorbonic sophists with their twisted speculations.

That however it may clearly stand forth that he brings forward falsehoods, see

Single Conclusion. — CHRIST LABORED UNDER NO KIND OF IGNORANCE WHATEVER, EVEN AS MAN. The truth of this Conclusion remains sufficiently proved from those things which we said concerning the fullness of the science of Christ the Lord. For he who had the most perfect knowledge of the existence of all things, and of things future and past, either in the Word through blessed science, or in its proper genus through infused science, labored under no vacuity of knowledge of things.

It is confirmed moreover from Clement of Alexandria in the book Paedagogus, cap. 6, where speaking thus concerning the baptism of Christ: Wisely therefore let us ask, whether Christ regenerated today is already perfect, or — what is most absurd — is anything wanting to him? but if it is so, was it needful that he learn something? but since he was God, it was consistent that he learned nothing. He judges it absurd therefore that anything was wanting to Christ, so that it was needful for him to learn. But that Clement speaks of Christ according to his humanity is manifest; for he subjoins: For neither was any one greater in word, nor is there Master and Doctor for him who alone is Master. Will they not then confess even unwillingly, that the Word born perfect from the perfect Father was perfectly regenerated by economical preordination? And if he was perfect, why was he who was perfect baptized? It behooved (they say) to fulfill the human profession most beautifully, for thus I speak, so he is baptized by John, he becomes perfect namely: therefore did he learn nothing from him? By no means: but by washing alone he is perfected, and sanctified by the coming of the Spirit.

The same truth and reason the Seraphic Doctor proves, dist. 15, art. 2, quaest. 1. Christ, he says, did not have the defect of ignorance, because neither did it befit him, because his soul ought to have been beautiful, and thereby filled with light, wisdom and rectitude of justice; but ignorance is privation of science, and can be a way into error and obliquity from rectitude of justice, and hence did not become Christ. Nor was it expedient for us whom he had come to redeem and direct. For if he had had the defect of ignorance, he would not have known how to redeem us, because if a blind man gives guidance to a blind man, both fall into the pit. And therefore neither did it befit him nor was it expedient for us that he should assume such a defect. It must be conceded therefore that Christ in no way had the defect of ignorance in himself. Thus St. Bonaventure.

You will object 1. Christ as an infant, although he was the Word of the Father, had the defect of eloquence and divine power: therefore by equal reason, although he was the wisdom and power of God, he had the defect of wisdom and knowledge. —

He denies the parity, the Seraphic Doctor, and brings forward the reason of disparity, that since the defect of eloquence and strength was exterior, it served, like the other infantile infirmities, for manifesting the truth of the assumed nature; but the defect of wisdom, since it is interior, would have served for nothing at all. He adds, that the former defects are matter for the exercise of virtue, patience, and fortitude; but the defect of cognition can serve for no virtue whatsoever, nay it calls away from the exercise of virtue: therefore there is no parity between the two defects.

You will object 2. The inquiry of truth supposes ignorance of it: but Christ the Lord inquired many things many times; for John 11 he asked the sisters of Lazarus where his sepulchre was, saying: Where have you laid him? And Luke 24 he asked the two Disciples walking on the way: What are these words which you confer with one another walking, and are sad? And John 21, as if doubting, he asks Peter whether he loves him more than the other Disciples, saying: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these. And Matt. 21, Seeing one fig tree by the wayside, he came to it: and found nothing on it but leaves only, and he said to it: May no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever; and immediately the fig tree withered: therefore before he approached the tree he did not know that there was no fruit on it.

Origen answers in the commentary on chapter 13 of Matthew: He who knows what is in the hearts of men, Christ Jesus, as he taught concerning this in the Gospel of John, does not ask as ignorant, but because he once assumed man, he uses all things that are man's, of which one is to ask. Nor must it be wondered at if the Savior does this, since he himself also, God of all, accommodating himself to the manners of men, inquires just as if some man should act according to custom toward his son, as in this: Adam where art thou? And to Cain: Where is Abel thy brother? The same St. Chrysostom teaches, Homily 11, where acting against the Jews who denied the divinity of Christ because he had asked about many things after the manner of the ignorant, as concerning Lazarus, Where have you laid him? prescribing against them in turn he objects various passages of the Old Testament in which God asks after the manner of the ignorant: from which he concludes that the Jews do not rightly gather ignorance in the Son from his inquiry unless they concede the same was in the Father. But St. Chrysostom seems to have spoken only of Christ as he is God. But of the same as he is man, Cyril removes every species of ignorance thus in book 3, Against Nestorius: We believe, he says, that from the very womb and belly of the Virgin Emmanuel himself, who was God, came forth a man full of all wisdom and grace which naturally inhered in him: what increase then would he take who has in him all the treasures of wisdom, who together with God the Father is the giver of heavenly grace?

You will object 3. Admiration supposes ignorance: for, says Aristotle, 1 Metaphysics cap. 2, Through wonder men now and first began to philosophize, namely by investigating the causes of things which they did not know: but Christ the Lord often had admiration: for Matt. 8 he marveled at the faith of the Centurion, and Matt. 13 beholding the faith of the Canaanite woman he exclaims admiringly: O woman! great is thy faith: therefore Christ had ignorance. —

The theologians answer commonly that Christ marveled with an admiration proceeding from experimental knowledge, according to which he could learn many particulars, as we said above. But I judge it better to say with St. Augustine, epistle 101, that admiration is twofold: one, whereby there arises from wonder at a cause whose effect one sees, and this excites in us a vehement desire of investigating the cause; another truly from the unusualness and rarity of some thing, which when we see we marvel with delight, and delight with admiration: which admiration indeed is nothing else than an affection of delight arising from the magnitude of a thing and inclining to praise. Thus Christ, says St. Augustine, marveled at the faith of the Centurion; for no reason of any thing could be hidden from him: but admiration is put for praise: whose equal had not appeared among the people of the Hebrews. Nor therefore is that knowledge to be reprehended whereof it was said: if reason is sought it will not be wonderful: since there is another kind of admiration even when the reason is manifest to the admirer.

You will object 4. The chief foundation upon which heretics most rely, that they may establish some ignorance in Christ, namely certain texts of Scripture perversely understood by them: those indeed are chiefly those in which it is asserted Christ knew not the day of judgment. Thus Matthew 21, 24: But of that day and hour, saith Christ himself, no one knows, neither the Angels of heaven, but the Father alone; but in Mark: But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the Angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but the Father: therefore something is hidden from Christ, and consequently there was ignorance in him. —

I answer first, that Christ truly knows the day of judgment, both as God, because that day is known to the Father, and as man, since for the state of judge it is necessary to know when judgment ought to be rendered: but the eternal Father, as we read John 3, gave him power to make judgment, because he is son of man. Add that, as St. Chrysostom argues, Hom. 71 on Matthew, if it was given to Christ as man to know how he ought to judge, which is greater, much more was it given him to know what is less, namely the time of judgment. Moreover, he who foretold the other circumstances of the coming judgment cannot be said to have been ignorant of the circumstance of time: but from the same passages of the Gospel it stands forth that he designated and foretold the other circumstances of the coming judgment: therefore also he knew the time in which it was to be accomplished. Again, Christ the Lord as man foreknew the deeds of others: therefore much more ought he to have foreknown his own: truly he would not have foreknown his own deeds if he had not known the day on which he was to be Judge of the living and the dead. Finally, as St. Gregory argues, book 8 of his Epistles, epistle 42, expounding that passage of John cap. 13, Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands. If all things, says Gregory, certainly the day of judgment and the hour; who then is so foolish as to say that the son received into his hands what he does not know? Therefore Christ truly, even as man, knew the day of judgment.

I answer secondly, that as far as the sense of the words by which the Evangelists relate that also the son of man knows not the day of judgment, there are various explanations and solutions of the holy Fathers. For first St. Ambrose, book 5 De Fide, c. 7, and Jerome on chapter 24 of Matthew assert that this particle, nor the son, was added into the text by the Arians, afterwards however struck out by Catholics; whence, as Jerome notes, in the Greek codices of Adamantius and in most Latin ones, that particle nor the son was never in Matthew. Whence even now it is not found in the Vulgate. But that solution cannot please, since that particle was always in Mark and is even now read in the Vulgate edition, which by the authority of the Council of Trent, session 4, has been approved as authentic. Hence it pleases with certain of the holy Fathers to assert that Christ knew not the day of judgment because namely he knows it not through connatural science, which is acquired by human study, the benefit of the senses, and the teaching of men. Thus St. Basil, epistle to Amphilochius, who had inquired concerning that question, answers that Christ as man was ignorant of the time of judgment: If anyone, he says, refer that ignorance to God, who by a certain dispensation received all things into himself, and advanced in wisdom and grace with God and men, he will not stray from the pious sense of Scripture. To him subscribes Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 46: To know indeed as God, but to be ignorant as man, if anyone separate that which appears in Christ from that which is perceived by mind. Cyril likewise in the refutation of Theodoreto ad anathematism t. says: And so he knows divinely indeed, as being the wisdom of the Father: but because he underwent the measure of an ignorant humanity through dispensation, this too he claimed as his own together with the others. Whence in book 2 he ascribes the ignorance of that day to the humanity of Christ: For it is not unbecoming to a creature, he says, nor unusual, to be ignorant of divine mysteries. And below: What wonder is it if while the Angel is said to be ignorant of this divine mystery, although he be the wisdom and power of God! But this solution can please only insofar as it would signify that Christ as man was ignorant of the day of judgment because he did not acquire that knowledge by his own study, but had it infused into him divinely, in which manner also St. Basil praised just now interprets it, saying that it was said Mark 13, nor the son, but the Father, because neither would the son know unless cognition were given from the Father, for all things he himself received from the Father. —

Some think that Christ knew not the day and hour of judgment because he did not cause to know, judging that it was not yet the time for revealing it, just as the Lord also Gen. 18 said concerning the Sodomites: I will go down and see whether the cry which comes to me have its works completed, or if it be not so, that I may know: in which words the Lord professes himself ignorant, not because he was truly ignorant and wished to know, but because he is said to know then when already there is fullness of time for acting and punishing sins; just as also Genesis 22, The Lord said to Abraham: Now I know that thou fearest the Lord; not because God then had begun to know it, but because then was the time that Abraham receive testimony. Thus explain St. Hilary, book 9 De Trinitate, Ambrose, book 5 De Fide, c. 7; above all however St. Augustine, book 83 Questions, q. 60, where he has this: As God is said to know, even when he causes to know, as it is written: The Lord your God tempteth you, that he may know if you love him; for this was not said as though God were ignorant, but that they themselves may know how much they have profited in the love of the Lord; which unless temptations come is plainly not acknowledged by men; and he himself is tempted is put for that he permits himself to be tempted: so also when he is said not to know, either it is said for this that he does not approve, that is, does not acknowledge in his discipline and doctrine, as it was said: I know you not: or for this that he usefully makes men ignorant, that which it is useless to know: therefore well is accepted what was said, the Father alone to know, to have been said thus because he causes the son to know; and what was said, the son not to know, to have been said thus because he causes men not to know, that is he does not bring it forth to them how they might usefully know. —

St. Ambrose confirms all these things most excellently in the place praised just now, where, when he demonstrated that Christ truly as God knew the time of the future judgment, he proves that he also had it ascertained as man: since he expressed the hour, and place, and signs, and causes of the future judgment. Indeed the hour, since Luke 17 he says: in that hour, he who shall be on the housetop, let him not come down to take his goods out of his house; but the day, because he called himself Lord of the sabbath. Could the Lord, says Ambrose, be ignorant of the day, who himself said that the son of man is Lord of the sabbath? The place, when namely showing to the Disciples the structure of the temple he said: Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you, there shall not be left a stone upon a stone. Matt. 24. The signs, Luke 21, Take heed you be not seduced; for many will come in my name saying, that I am Christ. And below: There shall be great earthquakes in places, etc. This however supposed, he concludes thus: He knew therefore all things; but we seek by what reason he willed not to designate the moments? if we seek, we shall find it belongs not to ignorance but to wisdom; for it would not profit us to know, that while we are ignorant of the certain moments of the future judgment, we, ever as placed in watchfulness, and set in a certain watchtower of virtue, might avoid the habit of sinning, lest the day of the Lord overtake us amid vices. And afterwards: Therefore I said, that to know would not profit, nay it profits to be ignorant: that we fearing as ignorant, observing might be amended. And below: From the Apostles, who believed the Son of God to know future things. for unless they had believed this, they would never have asked: asked therefore when he would restore the kingdom of Israel, he did not say he was ignorant of it: but he said: It is not yours to know times and years which the Father hath put in his own power. Attend what he said, it is not yours to know; read again it is not yours, he said, not mine. And below: I recognize even in this place his solemn charity toward the Disciples, and his grace: to seem ignorant of those things which he judged known things useless, which was never to demonstrate his own power.

Therefore, that certain Fathers assert that Christ as man said he was ignorant of the day of judgment, I judge to be thus to be expounded: not as though they denied the Son knew the day of judgment in the very humanity, but because he did not know it from the humanity itself, that is, not from the force or virtue of the humanity; since gratuitously there was infused into him divinely the science.