but as truth which can be alluded to, i. e. as matter of traditional acceptance common to the churches of Rome and Antioch with those churches-of Greece and Asia-to which Clement and Ignatius were writing1. Considering what the teaching of St. Paul and St. John on the subject of the Incarnation had been, this could hardly have been otherwise. When we first get formulated summaries of 'the tradition,' i. e. creeds, longer or shorter, this principle is the centre of the Christian theology.

Thus the creed of Irenaeus, often repeated in substance, is 'in one God Almighty, from whom are all things; and in one Son of God, Jesus Christ, our Lord, through whom are all things, and in His dispensations, by which the Son of God became man; and in the Spirit of God'.' And the 'rule of faith' as stated

remains evidence of the faith of Clement and his church: (1) In the fact that he quotes and depends upon the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. i. 5) about the person of Christ, c. 36. (2) In his reference to Christ as of Jacob, according to the flesh, тò Kaтà σáρкα, c. 32. (3) In doxologies addressed apparently to Christ, cc. 20, 50. (4) In the Trinitarian phrase, ζῇ ὁ θεὸς καὶ ζῇ ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἥ τε πίστις καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν, c. 58, cf. c. 46.

It should be added that the Shepherd of Hermas contains in the clearest form the principle of the Incarnation (not so clearly the doctrine of the Trinity) as accepted Christian truth. The Son of God, begotten before all creation as the counsellor of His Father in creation, was in the last days manifested for the salvation of man (Sim. ix. 12).

It is noticeable that Ignatius is contending not for the Godhead of Christ, but for His true humanity. The note of contention for the divinity of Christ appears first in the so-called second Epistle of Clement, probably a homily of the Corinthian Church belonging to the first half of the second century, but later than Ignatius. Here the preacher, having no doubt the Ebionites in his mind, begins 'Brethren, we must think of Jesus Christ as of God, as of the Judge of quick and dead: and we must not have mean views of our salvation; for if we think meanly of Him we expect also to receive but a mean reward.'

1 Iren. con. Haer. iv. 33. 7 εἰς ἕνα θεὸν παντοκράτορα, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, πίστις

by Origen is, so far as it bears on the Incarnation, as follows 1:

'The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follows. First, that there is one God... Secondly, that Jesus Christ Himself who came [into the world] was born of the Father before all creatures; that after He had been the minister of the Father in the creation of all things-for by Him were all things made-in the last times, emptying Himself [of His glory] He became man and was incarnate, although God, and while made man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. . . .'

But this common doctrine of the Incarnation may bring with it one of several different answers to the question of our Lord's consciousness in His mortal life. On this latter subject there was no tradition, and the early Church was left, as we are, to the examination of 'texts' and the formation of opinions. This appears from the three earliest statements on the subject.

IRENAEUS, assuming the principle of the Incarnation, emphasizes the reality of our Lord's entrance into

ὁλόκληρος· καὶ εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ τὰς οἰκονομίας αὐτοῦ, δι ̓ ὧν ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, πεισμονὴ βεβαία· καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ.

1 Origen, de Princ. pref. 4 'Species vero eorum quae per praedicationem apostolicam manifeste traduntur istae sunt. Primo quod unus Deus est... Tum deinde quia Iesus Christus ipse qui venit, ante omnem creaturam natus ex Patre est. Qui cum in omnium conditione Patri ministrasset, per ipsum enim omnia facta sunt, novissimis temporibus se ipsum exinaniens, homo factus, incarnatus est cum Deus esset et homo factus mansit quod erat Deus. Corpus assumpsit nostro corpori simile, eo solo differens quod natum ex virgine et Spiritu sancto est.

human experience. That he should have done this is no more than what we might expect from the greatest of the opponents of Gnosticism. 'Gnosticism' is a vague term, but a general characteristic of the phases of speculation and belief, which are grouped under the name, is a radical disbelief in the compatibility of the spiritual and the material, of God and nature, and, therefore, a radical antagonism to the root-principle of the Incarnation. Thus opposition to Gnosticism leads the Church teachers to a healthy emphasis, as on other things, so also on the reality of the human 'flesh' of Jesus. God really was made man. The Supreme did really enter into nature and manhood. Tertullian chiefly emphasizes this in regard to physical processes and sufferings and in regard to the actual human birth and human sufferings of the Son of God. But Irenaeus emphasizes it more broadly. He claims that God, the Son of God, did truly enter into all that makes up the nature of man in body, mind and soul. Not only, then, did He reveal God to man, but He 'exhibited man to God'.' He really went through human struggles and won a human victory. He struggled and overcame : He was man fighting for his fathers, and by His obedience paying the debt of their disobedience: for He bound the strong (adversary) and loosed the weak (captives) and gave deliverance to His creatures, destroying sin 2. And in order to fight the human fight fully,

1 iv. 20. 7 'Deo autem exhibens hominem.' This activity of the Word is not, however, confined to the Incarnation by Irenaeus.

2 iii. 18. 6, 7 'Luctatus est enim et vicit; erat enim homo pro patribus certans et per obedientiam inobedientiam persolvens; alligavit enim fortem et solvit infirmos et salutem donavit plasmati suo, destruens peccatum. .

'He passed through every age, from infancy to manhood, restoring to each communion with God.' And in order that His human struggle may be believed to have been real, St. Irenaeus postulates a quiescence of the divine Word 'while He was tempted and dishonoured, and crucified and slain,' as on the other hand its 'cooperation with the man (or manhood) in His victory and endurance and goodness, and resurrection and ascension 1.' Irenaeus thus emphasizes the reality of

Quapropter et per omnem venit aetatem, omnibus restituens eam, quae est ad Deum communionem.' Cf. also ii. 22. 4, an interesting passage, where great stress is laid on our Lord being truly what He seemed, and not violating the law of human life: Triginta quidem annorum exsistens quum veniret ad baptismum, deinde magistri aetatem perfectam habens, venit Hierusalem, ita ut ab omnibus iuste audiret magister: non enim aliud videbatur et aliud erat, sicut inquiunt qui putativum introducunt; sed quod erat hoc et videbatur. Magister ergo exsistens, magistri quoque habebat aetatem, non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem, neque solvens legem in se humani generis, sed omnem aetatem sanctificans per illam, quae ad ipsum erat, similitudinem. Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare; omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes et parvulos et pueros et iuvenes et seniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, et infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes; in parvulis parvus, sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem, simul et exemplum illis pietatis effectus et iustitiae et subiectionis; in iuvenibus iuvenis, exemplum iuvenibus fiens et sanctificans Domino. Sic et senior in senioribus, ut sit perfectus magister in omnibus, non solum secundum expositionem veritatis, sed et secundum aetatem, sanctificans simul et seniores, exemplum ipsis quoque fiens; deinde et usque ad mortem pervenit, ut sit primogenitus ex mortuis, ipse primatum tenens in omnibus, princeps vitae, prior omnium et praecedens omnes.'

...

1 iii. 19. 3 ὥσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος, ἵνα πειρασθῇ, οὕτως καὶ λόγος, ἵνα δοξασθῇ· ἡσυχάζοντος μὲν τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῷ πειράζεσθαι . . . καὶ σταυροῦσθαι καὶ ἀποθνήσκειν· συγγινομένου δὲ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν τῷ νικᾶν καὶ ὑπομένειν καὶ χρηστεύεσθαι καὶ ἀνίστασθαι καὶ ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι. Irenaeus' expression here admits of criticism. By the divine Word he must be understood to mean the powers of the divinity, if this passage is to be brought into agreement with his general doctrine. And his ascription of the elements of weakness only to the manhood, the element of victory to the Godhead, is not, as we shall see, justifiable from Scripture. But these defects of statement do not affect our present purpose. It ought of course to be remembered that

our Lord's human experiences. And, in accordance with this, the reality of our Lord's human ignorance. Then he rebukes the would-be omniscience of the Gnostics :

'Unreasonably puffed up, you audaciously declare that you know the unutterable mysteries of God; unreasonably-seeing that even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knew the actual day and hour of judgement, saying plainly of that day and hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, except the Father only. If therefore the Son did not blush to refer to the Father the knowledge of that day, but said what is true; neither let us blush, to reserve to God those points in inquiries which are too high for us. For no one is above his master. . . . For if any one ask the reason why the Father, though in all things holding communion with the Son, was declared by the Lord alone to know the day and hour; he could not at present find one more suitable, or proper, or less perilous than this (for our Lord is the only true master)—that we may learn through Him, that the Father is over all. For the Father, He says, is greater than I. And that even in respect of knowledge the Father is put over [the Son] is announced to us by our Lord, in order that we too, so long as we belong to the fashion of this world, may leave

a good deal of confusion of language (and thought) is due to the use of ¿ aveρwños, and still more of homo, for the manhood. Sometimes homo is used where what is clearly meant is not 'man' but 'manhood,' e. g. in Hilary, de Trin. ix. 7 homo noster = our manhood. But the use of the concrete term to express the abstract coincides with a frequent confusion of thought between the ideas of 'man' and 'manhood.' When opposition to Nestorianism led to clear definition the confusion of thought is over, though even then the use of homo for manhood does not cease. Thus e. g. the contra Eutychen et Nestorium, assigned to Boetius, a treatise devoted to defining exactly the distinct meanings of 'person' and 'nature' in the Incarnation, still uses the phrase (c. 7) vestitus homine as='clothed with the manhood.