?l.

muBEymr

J90?

XEbe xnntversttg of Gbtcago
FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER

THE INCARNATION AND MODERN
THOUGHT

A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(DEPARTMENT OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY)

BY
CARL DELOS CASE

CHICAGO
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
1908

Copyright 1908 By
The TJnivebsjty of Chicago

Published May 1908

Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A,

CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction  i
Chapter I. The Logos in the World — Divine Immanence . . 1 1
Chapter II. The Logos in Humanity — Divine and Human
Kinship  17
Chapter III. The Logos in Humanity — Race Solidarity . . 22
Chapter IV. The Logos in the Individual — The Evolutionary
Process  25
Chapter V. The Logos in the Individual — Psychological
Principles . .  28
Chapter VI. Jesus and the Logos  34
Chapter VII. Jesus and the Father  38
Chapter VIII. Jesus and the Holy Spirit ...... 41

INTRODUCTION
Referring to the attitude of the Ritschlian school to the Nicene
Christology, Scott, in his book on the Nicene Theology, says : "The
burning focus of this whole controversy and of all historical criti
cism of it, is the Incarnation of Christ." Indeed, outside of the
Ritschlian school, the central place in all Christian systems is
occupied, not simply by the Incarnation itself as a fact, but by
some christological explanation of the fact. The Christology of
the theologian of today is the center of his scheme of Christian
doctrine. It determines his view of God, man, and the universe ;
his theology, anthropology, and cosmology.
There is a tendency in many of the christological systems as
taught today, to minimize the philosophical elements; nor is this
tendency without beneficial effect. To emphasize the "ethical appre
hension of Jesus," to reproduce the "moral pictures" of Christ, to
proclaim thought inferior to life, to describe dogma as a human
product, has helped to restore the vigor of life to theology.
One result of this tendency has been an added emphasis on the
ethically correct Christian life. "Religion," says Max Muller, "is a
perception of such manifestation of the Infinite as produces an
effect upon the moral character and conduct of man;" but men
have been more occupied in contemplating "moral character" and
"conduct" than in analyzing the "perception." This is by no means
an entirely new feature of Christian thinking. It was Clement of
Alexandria who was attracted to Christianity by its lofty ethical
teaching and by the fruits which it bore in the practical transfor
mation of the life. Nevertheless, Clement felt that the Christian
truth commended itself to his reason; and the modern Christian
need not hastily pronounce a divorce of doctrine from practice.
Another result from the tendency just mentioned is the convic
tion that the crowning preparation for a ripe Christian belief is
experience. Conviction is produced, not through argument, but
through the soul's religious processes. Doctrine is rather the
flower of religious experience than its root. Theological construc
tions are the product, not the source, of religious life. Hence it is
a mistake to place as a prerequisite of the Christian life an under-

2 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
standing of Christian doctrine. The divine order is plain : "If any
man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether
it is of God, or whether I speak from myself."
According to the scholastics of the Middle Ages, the order of
Christian faith is : first, notitia, a knowledge of the biblical teach
ings of Christianity ; second, assensus, an assent to these doctrines ;
and third, fiducia, a personal acceptance of the system. Insistence
upon this order is the sword at the garden, to drive away thought
ful minds. Men ask: "How do I know whether these doctrines
are true ?" Much infidelity can be averted by the true order : first,
notitia, a knowledge of the person, Jesus Christ; second, fiducia,
an intrusting of the life to him by a holy confidence; and third,
gradually, and not by compulsion nor by authority, an assensus to
the doctrines as they are demonstrated by the inner life. It is not
by scientific argument or speculative reason that we are to be
religious, but by the apprehension or knowledge of the person,
Jesus, and the requisite attitude toward him.
Again, it is more or less acknowledged that a theological super
structure cannot be based on the uncertain foundation of science.
In one of the essays in The Spirit of Modern Philosophy, Mr.
Royce demonstrates the failure, from the data of modern science,
to describe the succession of phenomena into the infinite. As
long as the term "finite" is used, the order of nature is exact and
explainable; but no possible explanation can be given of the
infinite series either of the past or future. Consider all of the
usual arguments for the existence and being of God, such as form
the introduction to so many theological textbooks — how little
capable of producing religious conviction! A God to be wor
shiped is not discovered as the goal of a course of reasoning, or as
the conclusion of a syllogism. A statement of an order of phe
nomena is not a disclosure of the reality behind the phenomena.
It is not from man and the world to God that we can proceed.
Science finds here an impassable gulf. God must be reached by a
direct method, and the divine order established: from God to the
world and man.
Nevertheless, scientific and religious truth are not contradictory.
God is the same; the constitution of the world and the constitu
tion of the mind are correlates. There is no schism in truth. Nor
are the deliverances of science more certain than those of religion,

INTRODUCTION / T,
{ t
both resting upon faith. In the formulation therefore of religious
truth, the God and Savior of revelation must first be believed and
accepted before there can result individual doctrinal belief or an
accepted rationale of the universe.
In view then of these manifest advantages of a purely ethical con
notation of Christian truth, and of the fact that any formulation
must be of a greater worth to the Christian than to the unbeliever,
the raison d'etre of a treatise on the method of the Incarnation
must be found in the affirmative answer to these two questions:
first, is any theological formulation of Christian teaching in
regard to the person of Christ permanent, beneficial, and trust
worthy; and second, if the previous question is answered affirma
tively, will it be advisable to attempt any fresh formulations?
Two of the three classes that believe in Christianity today are
to be commiserated. The first class believes that the truths of
revelation are to be proved similarly to the determination of the
composition of water as H20. The second class fails to find a
reasonable basis for Christianity and yet adheres to it hoping
against hope. Like Jacobi, its members are Christians with their
hearts and infidels with their minds.
Perhaps it is with full recognition of the inherent difficulties
of the subject of Christology that Christian writers have thus writ
ten : "To know Christ is to know his benefits, not to dispute about
his nature ;" "the Incarnation .... can never be comprehended by
human thought;" "the problem (of the Incarnation) is insoluble
with our present knowledge;" "the divinity of Christ is incapable
of any adequate metaphysical explanation." But all these
statements are but to declare the uselessness of the attempts of
the centuries — to affirm with the old rabbinic master that when man
spoke, there was only one meaning, but when God. spoke, there
could be from five to forty-nine meanings.
The question is a practical one. If our religious ideas are but [
the vapor that arises from the cauldron of our heart, then it is a
blunder to condense into dogma what might have been the pent-up
energy for activity. If, as Professor George B. Stevens affirms
in his book on Doctrine and Life, we can, by separating the method
of the Incarnation from the considerations which favor the fact,
and by frankly admitting that the former is an absolute mystery,'

4 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
cause the idea of the Incarnation to commend itself to us, then why
waste energy in producing the contrary effect?
The western mind, however, demands a synthesis and classifi
cation. The simple affirmation to unbelievers of the fact of the
Incarnation reveals a vital reason for attempting a statement of
the Incarnation which shall be both definite and consistent with the
biblical data. Erroneous conceptions need the opposition of cor
rect views. Even if there is no intention of constructing a new
system, the very act of undermining a false structure supplies
material for a new formation. When one enunciates reasons for
accepting the self-revelation of God through Christ to the human
race, and for affirming that Christ has the value of God to men,
however we intertwine moral terms, we have the beginnings of a
theology. The very manipulation of words demands a condi
tion of intellectual development raised above mere feeling and
sentiment. It is an extreme view that no certain knowledge can be gained
of God outside the historical Christ, for there is a revelation of
God both in the heavens that declare his glory, and in the heart
of man that receives the light that lighteth every man that cometh
into the world. There are two sources of the knowledge of God,
and they must and can be correlated. From a scientific view of
the world arises a corresponding philosophy; and this philosophy
must agree with the Christian philosophy, which, to a Christian,
arises from his observation of the revelation in Christ. There
cannot be dualistic philosophies existing side by side in the same
mind; and the effort to unify them will compel the thinker to
reduce them to a common terminology.
The problem rests here: Grant the historical event of Christ's
revelation, and you must have a philosophy arising from your
view of the facts of the Christian revelation; but grant a Christian
philosophy, and you must connect it with the philosophy that arises
from your view of the world. Notice a late statement of this.
In the preface of President Schurman's Belief in God, this state
ment is found: "No theological belief can rest on a mere his
torical occurrence. An open-eyed theology must have a philosophical
basis." And later, in the body of the book, he says: "I
do not hide, therefore, the conviction that the problem of the
modern theist consists in the union of the Aryan and Semitic modes

INTRODUCTION 5
of interpreting existence. We must have a synthesis of the Father of
all spirits with the ground of all nature. In other words, we shall
be satisfied with nothing less than anthropocosmic theism." It
must be acknowledged, however, that philosophers generally, start
ing from a philosophical Weltanschauung, have not felt obligated
to conform their idea of the Absolute to the view of God arising
from the Christian revelation. Hence arises the apologetic ques
tion: Why should the philosopher start from the Christian con
sciousness more than from the Buddhistic consciousness, and why
from either? This previous question is, however, not considered
in the present discussion. To the Christian, the two views cannot
be regarded as generically antithetic, and his Christian must include
his human consciousness.
It is also apparent that a Soteriology must rest on an adequate
Christology. To lose the objective and real Christ is to dissipate
Christianity. Faith will refuse to rest on that which the mind
refuses to examine. A study of the Synoptic Gospels reveals, to be
sure, the ethical elements of the presentation of Christ as pre
eminent; but the ethical has a basis in the metaphysical. The
center of the ethical character and mission of Jesus is his person,
and the significance of Christ's person must be measured by his
relation to God, man, and the world.
It fascinates a modern mind to think that the idea is the con
tent, and the husk, in which the idea comes, is unessential; the
kernel lives and is reproductive, the shell is accidental and transi
tory. But suppose the observer watches the practical effect of the
attempt to discard the husk and save the kernel ? Note the opinion
of Professor Green and Thomas Carlyle, that if Arianism had
won, Christianity would have dwindled away to a legend. Note
the logical drift of the Unitarian church, that began with the denial
of the deity of Christ, and now admits anyone to the church —
Buddhist or Mohammedan — providing he wants to receive or give
help. In the words of one of their speakers : "We have stripped
off every rag. We have destroyed all the machinery."
Richard H. Hutton, in his Theological Essays, indicates some of
the influences which compelled him to accept the Incarnation as the
central truth of the Christian revelation. In answer to the diffi
culty that the "infinite being could not become finite, or take up
human nature into his own, except as a mere simulated appear-

6 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
ance," he says that the difficulty has entirely disappeared for him.
By noting the phenomena of paralysis in which the richest powers
of a man of genius which seemed to belong to him, identified
with his personality, are stripped from him and he is reduced to a
poor solitary ego, or perhaps lives in two worlds, in one of which
he is a feeble, helpless, isolated will and in the other a man of
genius still, it seems to Mr. Hutton to be —
simply the most presumptuous of all presumptuous assumptions to deny that
the Son of God might have really entered into a finite being. . . . If there
is an indestructible moral individuality which constitutes self, which is the
same when wielding the largest powers and when it sits alone at the dark
center — which may even live under a double set of conditions at the same
time — I can see no metaphysical contradiction in an Incarnation.
Plainly the view as touched upon by Mr. Hutton in the above
quotation, is what Dr. A. B. Bruce calls the "double life" theory.
With Mr. Hutton, it removes the intellectual difficulties for an
honest acceptance of Jesus as the Christ of God. The "double
life" or any other theory is not proved true because it removes
barriers to belief, nor is a personal and saving knowledge of Christ
synonymous with an acceptance of a christological theory. An
intellectual conception must not be confounded with a religious
apprehension. Nevertheless, a system of beliefs which corresponds
to our intellectual experiences and yet is made plumb with biblical
truth is shown by Mr. Hutton's experience to be helpful. Such a
system may and should be recognized as being human-made and
more or less temporary in form. History should never repeat
itself in making council-made creeds the condition of salvation.
The second question submitted for answer is : Is a fresh formu
lation of Christian teaching, and especially of the doctrine of Christ,
beneficial and necessary?
There is a strong present tendency to regard "Scripture terms
and categories as alone authorized and as alone competent to
express a true and adequate doctrine of the person of Jesus." Yet,
as far as Christ was concerned, he never formulated a system of
faith. Paul's teachings were produced under the stress of opposi
tion, and therefore the various epistles must supplement each other.
It is even fair to suppose, from the temporary occasion of their
composition, that all together do not in every instance give a com
plete presentation of a given subject. Paul himself says : "Now

INTRODUCTION 7
we know in part." The interpretation of Christ's life in the New
Testament, therefore, was true but not exhaustive. Nevertheless,
the teaching of the New Testament must be the mold about which
all later statements are to be formed; and as the teachings of the
New Testament are ever more clearly understood, a restatement
of Christian doctrine must be made which shall correspond to the
New Testament standard.
Passing to the later centuries, the same statement must assuredly
be made. We shall never possess terms or ideas sufficient to express
the myriad relationships of Christ. We shall never have enough
experiences in whose solution all alloys shall be dissolved from
the nugget of truth. The last word has not yet been spoken
concerning the person of Christ.
That is true of Christianity, which Max Miiller avers of all
forms of religion in general:
It is seldom borne in mind that without constant return to its fountain
head, every religion, even the most perfect, nay, the most perfect on account
of its very perfection more even than others, suffers from its contact with
the world, as the purest air suffers from the mere fact of its being breathed.
Alien elements which have adhered to the systems of beliefs
but have not been nor can ever be assimiliated, must be detached
that normal growth may ensue.
Again, Christianity must have power of adaptation. "Mahomet
as he was rules Mahometans as they are," says Hutton. But
Christianity is growing; it makes vital connections with each age.
The great desideratum of an adequate Christology is a modern
mold of thought. After the historical student has made the year
2,000 the year 30, the Aryan mind the Semitic, and Europe Pales
tine, the process must be reversed. The principles of the Palestin
ian presentation of Christ must be translated into the thought and
speech of the present day.
All of God's revelations have been mediated by historical con
ditions. We cannot have a historic religion which does not inte
grate itself into our conceptions. Past statements of Christian
doctrine are not necessarily the best, even though we must unhesi
tatingly retain the data of the revelation. "Every age," says
Schaff, "must produce its own apologetics, adapted to prevailing
tendencies and wants."
This acknowledgment of mutability in theology must apply

8 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
also to doctrine as accepted today. Our interpretations can never
be fixed or absolutely authoritative as a test of doctrine, except in
so far as they render impossible misstatements of the facts them
selves. The facts are permanent; the interpretations temporal.
Our little systems have their day;
They have their day and cease to be;
They are but broken lights of thee,
And thou, O Lord, art more than they.
The Spirit of God still moves on the face of history. The main
currents of life and thought have been regulated by Providence.
Though there have been currents and eddies, Christian thought has
flowed on toward the ocean of infinite truth.
To change the formulation does not change the truth, even
though it be granted that the older formulation did not express
the whole truth. The older form was a true manifestation,
but did not exhaust the content. Even the word "Logos" may
have been simply the form or coin of an early age, while the
bullion may be remelted for the philosophical molds oi other times.
The idea is permanent; the mold transient, and not fully adequate,
as no philosophical term ever is, to the idea. Yet even today the
ancient philosophical form expresses a truth the validity of which
the modern form does not annul. The term need never be entirely
superseded, and never should be if it belongs to the New Testa
ment, even though later terminology may have intervened.
The Christ as known tomorrow will assume larger meaning to
the world. A conception of Christ which did not touch the prac
tical thought and life of a generation would be a burden to faith.
Christ must be complete to every age, the best expression of its
life, the full realization of its ideals, the adequate interpretation of
its thought. The possibility and advisability, both of accepting any theo
logical system whatsoever and of making a fresh contribution to
theological thought, have now been affirmed. Not that any one
author can lead the development of doctrine along correct lines, or
bound the ocean of thought by a coral reef. To form a closed
system, to bottle up truth in labeled vessels of definition, is but to
repeat a false history. This present treatise not only does not
purpose to furnish a permanent system of Christology but not
even a system, attempting rather to indicate the perspective lines

INTRODUCTION 0
upon the canvas according to which, it seems to the author, the
future theologian will fix the unity of his picture and lay in the
living colors; or, to change the figure, to indicate the tendencies
in accordance with which truth is being enveloped in its human
garment. But how shall this be done ? Harnack may give the answer :
For the historian, however, who does not wish to serve a party, there
are two standards in accordance with which he may criticize the history of
dogma. He may either, as far as possible, compare it with the Gospel, or
he may judge it according to the historical conditions of the time and the
result. So much for the examination of a dogma of the past. For the
presentation of any possible formulation of truth the same two
criteria may be used — a fidelity to the gospel standard, on the one
side, and a compliance with the present historical conditions, on the
other. The former requirement should be met by an inductive
study of the New Testament to determine the exact content of the
gospel standard; the latter requirement should be met as any
tenet is re-examined and restated in view of the later developments
of science and philosophy.
According to the plan above outlined, the treatment of the
Incarnation and Modem Thought should be divided into two parts :
first, an examination of the books of the New Testament, to formu
late certain christological canons, which shall be the standards for
any future as well as past Christology; and second, to indicate,
both in accordance with these canons and the behests of modern
thought, the larger lines of the features of any future Christology.
The studies included in the first part, not traversing new subjects
of investigation, will not be presented here. It will be sufficient to
specify results in what may be called "The christological Canons
of the New Testament."
I. God and man are akin.
2. There is in all states of Jesus Christ .an identity of subject.
3. In both the pre-existent and exalted states, he is the principle
by which the universe is a cosmos and all physical and spiritual life
exist. 4. In his pre-existent state he was possessed of divine condi
tions and powers, and yet essentially human in nature, without
beginning, dwelling eternally in divine and equal association with

IO THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
the Father, the self-manifesting element of God, God's sole and
sufficient revelation, and the source of all moral and spiritual
enlightenment. 5. In his earthly state he was sinless, the ideal man, rendering
perfect obedience to God, ethically one with the Father, an adequate
ethical representation and manifestation of God. He lived a
normal human life, not as an assumption but a natural transforma
tion of the divine life, emptied of all heavenly powers and privi
leges. He grew in knowledge and moral perfection, enduring
temptation, depending upon God in every religious and moral
activity, with a life mediated by the Holy Spirit.
6. In his exalted state, he has both a local and universal exist
ence. These canons are not intended to be an exhaustive statement
of New Testament christological axioms, but a presentation of
those principles which show an affinity for certain products of
modern thought. They have a twofold value, both to test any
system of theological thought bequeathed by the past, and to be
the architectural design for any future construction. In accordance
with this latter use, they can now be connected with such philo
sophical and scientific conceptions as divine immanence, the exaltation
of man at the head of creation, social and racial solidarity, evo
lutionary development, unity of consciousness, and with the more
Christian conceptions of the ethical nature of God and the uni
versal and vitalizing presence of the Holy Spirit.

CHAPTER I
THE LOGOS IN THE WORLD— DIVINE IMMANENCE
The doctrine of the immanence of God is. the presupposition of
all science. On the one side, the various forms of physical inter
action can be accounted for only by a substantial unity of all
material things, and an orderly universe is possible only as there is
an indwelling presence of God. On the other side, without the
immanent God, there would be no correspondence between mind
and matter, or at least no knowledge of matter by mind that could
be considered trustworthy. The reasonable basis of science is the
doctrine of the immanence of God.
The doctrine of the divine immanence of God as opposed to a
one-sided emphasis of the doctrine of the transcendence of God has
not only long been popularized by such literary endeavors as that
of Emerson, but has of late been expressed in many philosophical
forms. One of these philosophical forms is a monism that teaches
that there is one underlying principle of all reality. There are
two extremes of monism, pantheism in which matter is all in all,
and idealism in which God is all in all. The mean of monism is
the doctrine of the immanence of God, God in his universe, the
infinite ever expressing itself in the finite.
In support of the view that forms of a monistic philosophy are
gaining a wider support, Professor Ladd may be quoted: "Dual
ism, as a claimant for the position of a rational and consistent sys
tem of thinking, is undoubtedly being discredited by the progress
of the age." And yet elsewhere, after stating that the new form
of physiological psychology has a strong monistic tendency favor
ing a monistic philosophy, he says that this psychology does not
deny "the derived and independent reality of either the body or
the mind." For either scientific or purely theological purposes, it
is sufficient to abide by the use of the term, "the Immanence of
God," which on the one hand does not deny "the derived and inde
pendent reality of either the body or the mind," and yet affirms a
unity of the universe as dependent upon the indwelling presence
of God. One form of this monistic philosophy attains to still higher

12 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
affirmations. It not only proclaims a universal underlying substance
as the principle of all existences and the source of all interactions,
but it declares that this basal unity is possessed of self -conscious
ness, intelligence, and will. So Ladd says: "This monism must
find the unity of all being and knowledge, the World-ground, in
an ideal Reality, a realized Ideal. Such a one is nothing less than
some rational, self-conscious, and personal life." Lotze, as a
representative of a pure monism, identifies his conception of the
one substance with his conception of the living God, and defines
the all-one substance as the absolutely good and the all-personality.
This extreme form of a monistic philosophy corresponds to
Christ's teaching. The Jews had recognized the activity of God
even in the minute affairs of the universe, but considered God as
separate from the universe mechanically ordering the world. The
teaching of the omnipresence of God, but not a true immanence, is to
be found in the sermons of the prophets. Still later, superstitious
belief created a series of intermediate beings to administer the
government of the world and God was relegated to a more dis
tant realm. But it was Jesus, with his fresher ideas of divine
providence, who taught that even a sparrow could not fall to the
ground without the heavenly Father, and Paul affirms that in
God "we live and move and have our being."
The church of today has received the heritage of two diverse
views of the early church, the Greek and the Latin. The Greek
was the first to be dominant, and the early church Fathers, such as
Clement, Origen, Athanasius, under the influence of the Greek
philosophy, saw in God "the ever-present life of the world." The
Latin idea, differing essentially from the Greek, emphasized the
transcendence of God, sovereignty enforced from the central
throne of the universe. The Latin view survived under the domi
nating influence of a monarchical form of government, and was
crystallized in the church organization. Not until the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries in the thinking of the heretics of the time was the
Greek idea at all restored. The doctrine of the Immanence of God
found no place in the theology of Calvin, and even today the
heritage of the past renders it difficult to secure the oriental turn
of thought necessary to conceive of the Immanence of God. But
a return is being made to the Greek conception, and when all doc-

THE LOGOS IN THE WORLD 1 3
trines shall be restated with reference to this vitalizing world-
view, the work shall have been completed.
The question whether religion is extraneous or native to man's
nature has been largely discussed during the last fifty years. In
Kidd's Social Evolution, religion is represented as that non-natural
although necessary force which makes life bearable by overcoming
the struggle for existence. But the Ascent of Man finds in religion
a natural expression of that Love-for-another which is a part of
the universal constitution of the world. Evolution was pushing
religion out of the domain of the world, but religion outflanked
the enemy, and entered the very camp of science. It claimed an
original occupation of the field.
The Immanence of God puts a new interpretation into the cos-
mological argument. President Schurman objects to the view that
atoms are "manufactured articles." "What is needed," he says,
"is not a supernatural creation of a non-existent world but a
natural interpretation of the world we find actually given." God is
not simply the final cause in the succession of causes, but is the
present producer of the energy by which matter is sustained and
mind is existent. Deny the creation of the world, and God will
still be found, and in a surer way, as the fundamental reality, with
out which all other realities are non-existent.
All causation is to be considered as the expression of God's
will. Secondary causes exist but not irrespective of that will.
All natural causation appears mechanical because regular. The
irregular has been termed miracle. But the world is not a machine,
or a Paley's watch, nor is God arbitrary, not acting always in the
same way under the same circumstances. The world is both
rational and moral. There is an orderly succession of phenomena,
not on account of the commandments of God, but because it is in
God's nature that as one phenomenon occurs, there shall be a cer
tain compensation, appearing in another phenomenon.
Thus the former distinction between the natural and super
natural is broken down. It is customary to trace the secondary
causes back to the supreme and final cause, with breaks in the
succession interposed by the supreme cause. So the penumbra of
the unknown has been regarded as God's domain, and consequently,
as the circle of the unknown has been growing smaller with zero
as its limit, theism seemed on the point of becoming practical

14 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
atheism. God is to be seen, then, not in the uncommon alone but in
the common; indeed more wonderfully in the common than in the
uncommon. The world is not a statue chiseled by God, and par
tially representing him ; but animate with his life. God is not to be
found by going out of the world, as thought Hypatia and the
neo-Platonists, but by a loving and reverent response to the ever-
present Father. The supernatural as far as it differs from the
natural is but a varying method of God's action in the universe
consonant with God's nature and purposes. In idealistic monism
the subject of greatest difficulty is the freedom of the will, which
seems to form a new center of activity separate from the universal
life. This is true according to the doctrine of the Immanence of
God, in so far as God has thus limited the free expression of his
will in human personalities ; but not true in so far as nothing can or
does exist without the sustaining power of the Almighty. Le
Conte represents the vital principle of plants and animals and man
as being the various grades of the "gradually increasing individu
ation of the divine energy." Thus the ganglion of the human
will is a redistributing center for the divine will, not altogether
independent nor yet subject to an absorption of the personality. A
relative independence is to be conceded man's will, according to a
right view of the Immanence of God.
Then is God responsible for the sin in the world? How natural
it is to say: "God is not omnipresent, if he 'is not also in the man
who sins ; he is not almighty, if he admits evil into the world." It
is true that no system of theology can entirely escape this difficulty.
But the end is not yet reached, and the final judgment of the world's
history cannot be made until the race's course is run. Undoubtedly
it must be said by the Christian theist, that the possibility of sin,
though not the fact of sin, was a necessity for the flowering out of
the best life of the universe. The brightest type of Christian
optimism sees something in Paul's bright vision : "every knee
shall bow," and knows the sun will scatter the chiaroscuro of chang
ing evil and good in the world's history.
The doctrine of the Immanence of God teaches that God is the
life of the universe, not identical with it, nor exhausted by it. God
cannot be conceived as quantitatively filling all space. He has pos
sibilities of actualizing his will beyond the wildest human dreams.
God is to be conceived as both immanent and transcendent, and

THE LOGOS IN THE WORLD 1 5
therefore perfectly free in all his operations in the universe. The
"arrival of the fittest" which is the previous problem to the "survival
of the fittest" in evolution finds its explanation here. The added
increment in the progress of evolution is due to the eternal vitaliz
ing energy of God.
The sun, the moon, the stars, the seas, the hills and the plains, —
Are not these, O Soul, the Vision of Him who reigns ?
Speak to Him, thou, for He hears, and Spirit with Spirit can meet —
Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.
The transition in thought must now be made from the scientific
or philosophical view of this doctrine of divine Immanence to the
theological. Of science as such, Christianity has nothing to say.
However, it receives the philosophical world-principle and connects
it with its own doctrines. That which is at the basis of our confi
dence in the uniformity of phenomena, that which is conceived as
the cause of the higher teleology as by Romanes and Fraser, is not
only a person, as has already been seen, but the Logos. One school
of thought may insist upon the separation of our knowledge of
nature and our belief in Christ, but the teachings of John and Paul
are congenial to modern thought, presenting an ontological basis
for salvation. The doctrine of the Immanence of the Logos is not
extraneous to Christian belief. All of the offices of the incarnate
Son in the work of redemption and regeneration have their basis in
the cosmical relations of Christ. There must be a present Christ,
but not by the creation of the body and blood in the Eucharist.
Jesus is here in vital connection with believing hearts, not by an
unnatural process, but because all human beings have their ground
in the life of the Logos. Rightly then did Justin Martyr hold that j
there was a true revelation in philosophy because of the Word
"that lighteth every man that cometh into the world."
The Incarnation is the most natural of occurrences. The defect
in early Christology was in treating the Incarnation as an absolute
miracle. But there must be less of what Dr. Simon calls the "air
of exceptionality." Deny the Immanence of God, and the Incarna
tion becomes arbitrary and mechanical. Witness Arius who con
ceived God as at an infinite distance from the world in solitary
existence, only communicating to this world through the super
natural man, neither divine nor human, called Christ. To think of

l6 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
the person of Christ as the great disturbance of nature belittles the
grandeur of the cosmic scheme, and connects Christ only arbi
trarily with the salvation of the world. But regarding God as
immanent, it would be unscientific to affirm the impossibility of the
Incarnation. When the Logos is the cohesive principle of the uni
verse, the Incarnation cannot be a break in the established system.
Referring again to the quotation above made from Le Conte,
that the plant, the animal, and man are but the individuation in
various conditions of the all-pervading force, the divine energy,
this sentence is found : "Again a spark of the pervading energy
struggles still upward, and under still higher conditions, com
pletes its individuality and becomes a living soul, or immortal spirit
of man." Using the same terminology and waiving at present the
consideration of the difference of nature between Christ and
human beings, could not Christ thus be * described, and would not
his advent seem as natural? If God is immanent, the connection
between the divine and human in Christ has not been arbitrarily
made; instead of the old enforced alliance between the human and
divine, there is a vital union. To deny the immanence of God is
to emphasize the divine nature of Christ at the expense of the
human, while in fact the Incarnation is a revelation in flesh, not a
concealing of the God who is all in all.

CHAPTER II
THE LOGOS IN HUMANITY— DIVINE AND HUMAN KINSHIP
It was Dorner who once wrote : "To true christological knowl
edge it is necessary above all to sound the depths of the idea of
deity and of the idea of humanity in their relation to each other;
the possibility and significance of their union in one person will then
become clear of themselves." And not only does the reality of the
divine-human personality depend upon the relationship between the
human and the divine, but the adequacy and character of redemp
tion. What man is in Christ as well as what Christ is as God in
the world, depends upon the relation which obtains between the
divine and human. By some the creation and sustentation of
matter is regarded as a self-limitation of God, because matter is
regarded as finite and not a pliable agent of God's will. If so, it
is a limitation self-imposed by God, not subversive of God's omnipo
tence. If the sustentation of matter is self -limitation, then the
self -limitation must be greater in the higher grades of life-organi
zations until where there is the self-centered will of man, the self-
limitation is at its greatest. And yet must not this self-sacrifice be
for a great moral purpose worthy of the nature of God? And
whatever that moral purpose is — and the gospel reveals it — that is
the motive for the Incarnation, which according to this view must
be God's supreme act of self-limitation. And as the purpose is one,
so is the character of the self-limitation the same — God immanent
in his universe limiting himself in matter, in organic forms, in
human personalities, and in the Son of God, the climactic expres
sion of God's love, and the most natural yet supernatural individua
tion of his life.
The ever-present problem of the early church was the unifica
tion of the divine and human in Christ with the ever-present danger
of losing the uniqueness of the sonship of Christ while securing
an adequate redemption for man by virtue of this union. The
danger assumed so large proportions at the time of the Eutychian
controversy that the doctrine that the divine nature is consubstantial
with ours has ever since been declared heretical. Seventeen cen
turies of unsuccessful endeavor to make lifelike the divine-human
17

1 8 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
nature of Christ ended in a deistic rationalism which made the
divine and human contradictory terms and consigned God to the
edge of the universe, leaving men to hear, as Jean Paul Richter
says, "the screech of a Fatherless world."
The reactionary philosophy, teaching the absolute unity of the
human existence with the divine, which Fichte, as an exponent of
this speculative tendency, called "the profoundest insight man can
attain," failed again in not recognizing Christ as the Son of God.
It gave, however, a greater prominence to the eternal significance
of human sonship, and aided philosophy in its renewed attempts at
explaining Christ. Today that which Dorner said is still true:
"The characteristic feature of all recent Christologies is the en
deavor to point out the essential unity of the divine and human."
Science also as well as philosophy magnifies the kinship of
God and man. It affirms that the world was built for man. The
long processes of evolution culminating in the production of man
reveals the nature of God by the highest product of the process,
that is, man. Man alone knows the language of God, bows to the
obligation of the Ought, and responds to the Father's love. So
Agassiz says : "Man is the end toward which all the animal crea
tion has tended." Bruce says : "In man all that went before finds
its rationale." And the significance of this process culminating in
man, Professor Fiske shows by the words : "When from the dawn
of life we see all things working together toward the evolution of
the highest spiritual attributes of Man, we know, however the
words may stumble in which we try to say it, that God is in the
deepest sense a moral Being."
In other words, God and man are not two extremes excluding
each other. There is a community of nature, a relationship in the
same genus. Adam is the son of God and Jesus is the son of
Adam ; the line of descent is continuous. The original constitution
of man was stamped with the image of God, which image was not
lost by the fall. Man is like God, and therefore God is like man.
Anthropomorphism is in all of our ideas of God, as indeed all
facts of science are known and interpreted in terms derived from
the constitution and action of the human mind. The anthropomor-
phization of God and the apotheosis of man are both attributable to
the essential likeness of the two. If the statement in Genesis that
man is made in the image of God is interpreted in the light of the

THE LOGOS IN HUMANITY 1 9
New Testament passages, that the world was made by Christ, it
follows that man was created after the image of Christ. Certainly
in Christ do all things exist, and from him do all human beings
derive and perpetuate their personality. "Inasmuch as ye have
done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done
it unto me." Or as Whittier wrote of a negro in a slave mart,
In that sad victim then,
Savior of pitying men,
I see Thee stand.
The Scripture teaches also that men are the offspring of God.
Three hundred years before Christ, Arathus, a native of Cilicia,
Paul's own province, wrote:
From Zeus begin: and never let us leave
His name unloved. With him, with Zeus are filled
All paths we tread and all the marts of men;
Filled, too, the sea and every creek and bay;
And all, in all things, need we help of Zeus,
For we, too, are his offspring.
And Paul quotes approvingly.
The fatherhood of God meant to the ancient Jew the patriarchal
authority possessed by the head of a large household; to the
Roman, unbounded authority of legal control, limited only by the
death penalty; to the modern American — if we trust Spencer —
slavery to the small tyrants of the household. Through every one
of these definitions, all insufficient, has God been viewed and de
scribed. Creatorship is not fatherhood or else sonship would not
be limited to the human family, neither does the goodness and
graciousness of God alone constitute him a father though God sus
tains moral relations to- man; but fatherhood means, in its natural
sense, that man was created in the image of God. Man is a per
sonality, self-conscious, intelligent, with self-determination and
moral susceptibilities. As such he belongs to God's family.
Sin does not destroy this original relationship. Sin is not
essential to the eternal plan of God, nor to our conception of man's
personality. The branch is still a part of the vine, though the
ligature has obstructed the flow of life. Man saved or unsaved is
the offspring of God.
But there is another, a deeper sense of sonship to God taught

20 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
in the New Testament, or else every man, by virtue of the indwell
ing of the Logos within him, irrespective of the Incarnation, would
be a son of God. This sonship, or adoption as son, is brought about
by believing upon Christ. In conjunction with this adoption as
son, God sends the Holy Spirit to bring into the consciousness this
sonship as vital and real. Accordingly evil men are called children
of the devil, whether the term is used by Christ or Paul ; and those
who are Godlike, loving their enemies, are children of the Father.
The latter, however, can only become children of the Father as
they are born of the Spirit. It is plainly taught that only those
who have been born again are capable of being Godlike in nature
and action.
Some have thought to make these two conceptions of sonship
irreconcilable, at least as far as the Bible is concerned. "We can
not," says Fairbairn, "accept Luther's article of a standing or fall
ing church as our principium essendi. It is Paul's rather than
Christ's ; it may be true, but it still remains what it was at first — a
deduction by a disciple, not a principle enunciated by the Master."
Nor did the dualism — if such there be — cease in the New Testa
ment. The one idea, the universal fatherhood, had a history in
Greek theology which emphasized the essential unity of God and
man. The other idea, the limited sonship, dwelt exclusively in the
Latin theology, which emphasized the separation of God and man
except under certain prescribed conditions. There is a unity between
God and man, in essential nature ; there is a separation, in ethical
unlikeness. Christ was son of God by virtue of his ethical one
ness with God ; man, as ethically one with God, is also son of God,
only he cannot attain unto this ethical oneness until the life of
Christ breaks the ligature of sin and brings him again into vital
connection with the eternal source of life. One is the natural son-
ship; the other, the spiritual. One is physical, the other ethical.
But the spiritual sonship is never possible without the basis of the
natural. God is ever the Father both naturally and ethically ; but
man is not so ethically until the Holy Spirit becomes the channel
of a new life from Jesus Christ.
Through the kinship of the divine and human, humanity has
the capacity for the divine, and is not, as in a Latin atmosphere is
taught, unsuitable for spirit abode, or an inadequate expression of
the Logos. The seed of life cannot be implanted where there is

THE LOGOS IN HUMANITY 21
not a proper environment. Humanity was the proper foundation
for the superstructure of the divine. The Logos could never have
been incarnated in a lower form of animal life. Thus Luther's
dictum must be true: Finitum capax infiniti. "It takes a God
to discern a God," says Novalis; so it takes the divine to receive
the divine. Christ was "manifested at the end of the times," not
concealed. It is through the medium of the humanity that the' Logos
is revealed, not apart from it. With the Immanence of God, and
then above that, the divine and human kinship, we shall turn from
every form of Docetism or Ebionitism to the true Incarnation of
the Word. We cannot prove the divinity of Christ unless man
himself be regarded as divine. Once we made man as little as
possible to prove Christ's divinity; now we make him as great as
possible. That which is human is not ideally human unless divine,
and the final argument for the divinity of Christ is his perfect
humanity.

CHAPTER III
THE LOGOS IN HUMANITY— RACE SOLIDARITY
A race unity is generally acknowledged to be one of the pre
suppositions of religion, though the character of that unity has
more or less escaped definition. Two New Testament passages
show that one bond of racial unity is the common relation of the
members of the race to Adam, though this relation is limited to
man's sinful condition as derived from the race's first ancestor.1
Certainly human beings are all descendants of Adam, and perhaps
in this sense are all "of one." 2 As truly, also, there is a stream of
hereditary influence predisposing the heart to evil, flowing from
the origin of the race to the present time. There is also an inter
pretation whereby Adam was appointed the representative head of
the race, the individuals of the race being all bound by his actions.
But whether these or other like theories are true, they do not
assist in the furtherance of the present problem, except as the
general statement can be made that the race has somewhat of a
corporate existence.
A social solidarity is much in speech at present. So much is
each individual a part of the social order, that the slightest
action of one affects the welfare of the whole, as does the throwing
of the pebble have its influence, though small, upon the universe.
The solidarity is, however, a poetical conception based upon the
countless interactionary influences prevalent in society. Gladstone
has declared that the "personality of societies is not any mere meta
physical or theological abstraction, nor a phrase invented for the
purpose of discussion, but a reality, having its own palpable expo
nents in the persons of those who are the organs of society." But
real though the social solidarity is, the race has not thereby a
corporate existence.
Between Christ and the regenerate portion of humanity, there is
a corporate unity which is real, not poetical. Christ is the head of
'Rom. 5:12; I Cor. 15:22.
2 Acts 17 : 26.

THE LOGOS IN HUMANITY 23
the church and the church is the body of which Christ is the life
and unifying principle. This corporate unity furnishes an analogy
for the wider corporate unity of the race. As in Christ do all things
consist, and as from the Logos all known beings derive their life
and personality, it follows that the solidarity of the race is based
upon its relation to the Logos. The undercurrents of influence
and responsibility have their reasonable explanation only as the
Logos is regarded as the fundamental reality of humanity without
which neither the race nor any individual of the race can exist. The
statement of the French preacher, Bersier : "In my individual life
I feel the life of humanity, in my blood the life-stream of the
race," can only be true as the Logos is the unifying principle of the
human race.
The dependence of the race upon the Logos is not merely
nominal. Each individual draws life and personality from him. I
am bound to my neighbor because the Logos is in him as in me ; the
brotherhood of man is assured by the unity of the race in Christ,
and yet the personalities of human beings differ as the Logos dif
ferentiates the common life in various individuals.
The practical bearing of this doctrine of racial solidarity is
to be seen in the doctrine of redemption. Christ's essential rela
tionship to humanity is to be connected with the biblical teachings
of the Atonement, of sonship, of vital union with Christ. Christ
can die for all, and it is possible to rescue all, because he came as
an individual into a corporate humanity which he himself consti
tuted a unity. The authors of Progressive Orthodoxy state that
the articles of the book are written under the guidance of a central
and vital principle of Christianity — "the reality of Christ's personal
relation to the human race as a whole and to every member of it."
Truly, as D. W. Simon says : "The conception of the organic
unity, or solidarity of the whole of humanity, is not indeed very
distinctly expressed in the Scripture; but it certainly lies at the
back of and conditions their teachings, especially regarding redemp
tion." If the individuals of the human race had had no vital con
nection with each other, salvation by incarnation as far as human
wisdom can understand would have been impossible.
Justin Martyr said that "the whole race of man had part in the
Logos." Here is to be found a reasonable basis for the Incarna
tion. It was possible for the Word to become flesh in the human

24 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
race of which the Word was the principle of existence and unity.
The man Christ Jesus was thus connected with the whole race, an
individual among individuals, the Word made flesh, God manifest
in humanity. "His individuality," says Martensen, "stands in the
relation to all other human individualities in which the center of
a circle stands to all the single points of the circle."

CHAPTER IV
THE LOGOS IN THE INDIVIDUAL— THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS
The conclusions already reached, divine Immanence, divine and
human kinship, and race solidarity, all tend to overlook the differ
ences between the man Christ Jesus and other men. Christ may
be a more striking variation, "an individual variation of apparently
spontaneous origin," but is he also different in type? The doc
trine of evolution also seems to negative the spiritual and moral
supremacy of Christ. It is not sufficient to say that the human race
is a degeneration and that Christ is a restoration to type. This
would satisfy evolution, but not Christianity. Christ is something
more than an unfallen Adam. Neither is Christ, according to a
theistic evolution, a "devolution" from above foreign to the con
stitution of the human race. The Incarnation was not a deus ex
machind into the arena of the world, previously godless. Theistic
evolution agrees with atheistic evolution that there has never been
an introduction of a foreign force into the realm of nature, but
denies that what you find anywhere in the series is to be found in
germ in the first of the series, and that the new spiritual force of
the Incarnation was a recombination or expression of the ele
ments of the past. The constant increment of progress in the evo
lution of the universe is added by the immanent Christ in whom
all things consist.
Progressive revelation is a method of God. "When the ful
ness of time was come," God was manifested in the flesh. A prior
personal revelation would have been an anachronism. All preced
ing manifestations were but immature developments of the perfect
revelation. A final perfect revelation makes the evolutionary pro
cess possess significance. Revelation becomes constantly richer
until it reaches a culmination in Christ; or rather revelation is a
great momentum in history forming the nucleus of a religious
future culminating in the kingdom of God. Hegel has shown that
a historical person was needed to reveal to the common conscious
ness the unity of the divine and human nature. The Idea must be
something seen, the Divine must appear in the form of what is
Immediate. But what is true of one phase of the divine revela-
25

26 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
tion in Hegel's system, is true of all revelation. As Van Dyke says
in his book, The Gospel for an Age of Doubt: "Each successive step
in this manifestation realizes and exhibits something higher and
more perfect, to which all that has gone before has pointed, and
in which the potentialities of all previous developments are not
only summed up, but raised to a new power."
Now if Christ was unique, there are but two solutions of the
problem of his appearance: either he was an absolute interference
in the realm of nature, or else a term in the sequence of natural
causes. The former solution has already been negatived. The
latter solution can only be accepted as the uniqueness of Jesus is
left unimpaired. It is admitted that in nature there have been
great epochs in the process of development. At the present, three
great crises at least in the evolutionary process are recognized,
where there have been no known antecedents : the origin of matter
or of material reactions under the present system, the origin of
life, and the origin of self-conscious life. From the standpoint of
atheistic evolution, these are unexplainable chasms in the process.
Nor indeed, are these all of the unexplainable changes. Any varia
tion that marks a higher stage of development has no scientific
explanation. Science has accounted for the survival of the fittest,
but not for the arrival of the fittest.
Le Conte, in Religion and Science, thus gives his acknowledg
ment of this lack on the part of science :
My own very strong conviction . . is that no theory of evolution yet
proposed explains the origin of species; that the factors mentioned above
(pressure of external conditions, improvement of organs by use, divergent
variation of offspring, and survival of the fittest) may produce varieties, but
not species, much less genera, orders and classes; that the great factor of
change and the real cause of evolution is still unknown. Evolution may be
the universal formal law of the Universe (of time) but the cause of the law
is yet undiscovered.
All that Christianity asks is that the increments of progress
be denominated after the manner of Lotze — continual divine rein
forcements. The pivotal question is not what is the process of de
velopment, but what is the origin of any variation ; and this is to be
answered according to New Testament teachings, by affirming
that the Logos is both the principle of all existences and the cause
of differentiation. Christ is not then to be placed in a natural

THE LOGOS IN THE INDIVIDUAL 27
sequence. He is the beginning of a variation, "the firstborn among
many brethren," a new and original force in the world added by the
Logos in whom all things consist. As a beginning of a new species,
as a new order in the natural universe, Christ is not contrary to the
course of nature, but is to be expected where three crises par
excellence have already occurred. Thus was Christ unique, as
George Harris in Moral Evolution says : "In many respects Jesus
was a distinct type ; .... as transcending all others he was a new
cause, the power of God in higher potency."
Although in evolution the perfect is at the end of the series,
Christ came in the course of human history because he was the
beginning of the variation. Nevertheless, the development of the
race is not contrary to the usual evolutionary processes. Evolution
is ever working for the perfection of the species, while the indi
viduals seem to be lost in the process. The kingdom of God adheres
to the first principle but reverses the second; there is to be both
a social and an individual completion. All things on earth and in
heaven find their culmination in Christ. All things were created
unto (eis) him. The kingdom of God, as the parables of the
Sower and the Leaven and the Mustard Seed evince, is an evo
lutionary process. It does not come ready made as according to
Jewish conception. He, who is the commencement of a new
order, will be reincarnated in human beings, until the whole body,
filled with his fulness, shall mark the culmination and perfection
of the Christian evolutionary development.

CHAPTER V
THE LOGOS IN THE INDIVIDUAL— PSYCHOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES
The doctrine of the two natures in Christ has always been the
insoluble difficulty for any Christology. Perhaps it is always
wiser, if one accepts the doctrine, frankly to acknowledge ignorance
as does Bishop Morehouse, who says: "I answer at once, that
the manner of this wondrous hypostatic union is a mystery too
great for me." The formula of the Council of Chalcedon is still
valid as a definition of the two natures, though it has been
variously interpreted, even as is the constitution of a state, in
ways unthought of by the original formulators. A part of it
reads :
One and the same Christ, .... manifested in two natures, without con
fusion, without conversion, indivisible, inseparable, the distinction of natures
being by no means abolished by the union, but rather the property of each
preserved and combined into one person and one hypostasis.
A conjunction or a blending is not to be thought of. There is
interpenetration of natures, but each retains its own properties so
that it can be said, "The same perfect in Deity, and the same per
fect in humanity, truly God, and the same truly man."
The serious objection to the formula of Chalcedon is not that
Jesus is made an anomalous personality, for mystery is to be
expected in the person of Christ, but that the living unity of Christ's
person is virtually denied. The Bible knows nothing of the union
into one of the human and divine natures, nor of the attempted
combination of the attributes of the divine personality and the
attributes of the human in ways impossible to conceive. Even the
best statement made of the union, such a one for example as Van
Oosterzee's, "Both natures have communicated their properties to
one and the same person," has little content on account of the
difficulty of separating in definition "personality" and "nature."
The practical, that is a soteriological as well as psychological,
problem in connection with the Chalcedon formula is to give due
prominence to the human nature of Christ. There must be a human
nature in Christ, because "that is not saved which is not assumed."
There must also be a human personality which is a very essential
28

THE LOGOS IN THE INDIVIDUAL 29
of the human nature assumed. Even Christian faith, irrespective
of Christian knowledge, demands that an emphasis be laid upon the
human nature of Christ. So says Hutton: "To me, it would be
far more painful to believe in the unreality of Christ's finite nature
and human condition, than to give up Christianity altogether."
The reformed Christology, seeking to remedy the defect in cur
rent christological thought, emphasized the human nature of Christ,
holding to the doctrine of the two estates. This system was better
than the scholastic view which tended to evaporate the human
nature of Christ, and better than the view of Luther which tended
to deify it ; but it failed to retain unity in Christ's personality. Nor
will any system, as long as due prominence is given to both natures,
succeed in removing the antinomies of divine omniscience and
human ignorance, divine omnipotence and human weakness, divine
omnipresence and human localization — in fact the finite and the
infinite as predicated of the same being. If, however, a real unity
is obtained, it is done at the expense of one of the natures. If
the divine nature is emphasized, then the human is unreal and acci
dental, existing only in name; if the human, then God is not
present except in the manner present in all good men, though in
greater power. The formula, "two natures and one person," has
swayed either to Adoptianism and a double personality, or to
Nihilianism, the destruction of the humanity. On the one side,
the human is emphasized; either it receives a grace by which its
natural properties are magnified, or, the humanity is supple
mented by the divine. On the other side, there is, as Irenaeus said,
an occasional "quiescence" of the divine Word to allow of the
human trials ; or, as Luther affirmed in his earlier teaching, there
was during the earthly period a limitation of the participation of
the human nature in the divine attributes ; or else Christ, or the
divine personality, exercised a deliberate act of self-control in
abstaining from the use of the divine attributes.
There has been ever a demand for a closer union of the divine
and human in Christ and the need has never been satisfied. Reac
tion has always been succeeded by another attempt. The only
solution will be reached when the conception of the two natures is
dropped. That which the Bible does not demand and which is
repugnant to psychological science must give place to an adequate
and reasonable statement of the person of Christ. In some way

30 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
Christ must be considered human as a whole and divine as a whole.
The human mind cannot as a human stereoscope combine the two
natures in a composite picture. The result is confusion.
The difficulty is not one alone of the person of Christ. A return
must be made to the idea of God. As long as God is the external
architect of the world, it is hard to conceive of Christ as more than
docetic, the flesh only a manifestation of the divine. But when
God is conceived as immanent, and the Logos as the eternal prin
ciple of humanity, the manifestation of the Logos in the personality
of Christ is more reasonable. The human and the divine are not
contradictories, nor entities exclusive of each other. Truly does
President Schurman say:
A closer examination may hereafter show that the Infinite Spirit includes
the finite, as the idea of an organism embraces within a single life a plurality
of members and functions; in which case the finite and infinite would be no
longer contradictories and the contrast they imply would convince none but
the unthinking of the incommensurability of God with the capacity of the
mind of man.
The appearance of Christ then as the Word made flesh may
thus be explained : The Logos is the principle of all existence and,
in the process of nature's history, he is ever going out in self-mani
festation in response to the demands of his own nature. In accord
ance with this demand, the Logos in which all is sustained
was organized under the law of space and time into a
human individuality, having individuated his own life into a per
sonality subject to the conditions of all human personalities. The
early church Father, Marcellus, seemed to present this view when
he said, that personality in Christ arose by circumspection in
divinity. Christ is man, an individual man, as truly man as is any man.
The Logos unincarnated is the basis of all humanity, but as
incarnate, manifested in one personality. Yet Christ was not a
separate entity from the Logos as are other men. There was a
continuity of subject in the Logos which connected the two forms
of manifestation. Man unlimited would not be God, but the
Logos manifested in humanity is a man. The Incarnation was
therefore no assumption of human nature or a clothing of the
divine soul in a fleshy garment, nor the incarnation of the human
life of God as some have lately said — for God's whole life was

THE LOGOS IN THE INDIVIDUAL 3 1
given — nor was it strictly speaking the humanification of the
Logos, for the Logos was already human in nature and personality.
Human nature is not foreign to the Logos. The Incarnation was
the appearnce of the Logos life within the normal conditions and
limitations of humanity.
A correct definition of personality does not oppose, but rather
favors the idea just presented. If the Logos is not personal, as
Servetus taught, there could be in Christ only a human personality
as in all men by reason of the energizing of the Logos ; but there
could be no God-man, different in form from other men. But God
is personal, and as such possesses "individuality, self -consciousness,
self-determination, love, and as the result of their living inter
action, character." "Is personality involving self -consciousness and
self-determination predicable of the divine being?" Paulsen and
Pfleiderer say that God cannot by any possibility be infra-personal.
Yet he can be supra-personal; that is, he can be all we know of
personality and much more.
Granting personality in the Godhead, we can agree with Orr,
who, though opposed to the general idea of kenotism, says that
"what is denied is that the personality of the Divine Son cannot also
become in the incarnate condition a truly human one." Julius
Miiller, as quoted by Van Dyke, suggests that by the divine self-
limitation in the Incarnation the distinctive attributes of person
ality are actually unified, like two circles which have a common
center. The idea is somewhat mechanical, as also is every idea of
kenotism, not purely ethical, but the gist of the thought remains
that personality human and divine is of the same kind.
The kenotic method of statement is but the obverse side of the
view already presented; that is, it proceeds from the side of the
concealment of the divine life instead of the manifestation. It is
therefore manifestly true but not the whole of the truth. It pro
ceeds from the side of the contraction of the divine life in human
form rather than the expression of it. Dorner is very strong in
his belief that "full justice can never be done to the humanity in
Christology, until the self -limitation, the self-exanition of God
be recognized." The kenosis is a self -divestment of those natural
prerogatives that pertain to the divine nature and the divine man
ner of existence, and a contraction to the dimensions of humanity.
What this limitation signified could scarcely be discovered

32 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
except inferentially from the biblical record, but it is certain that
Jesus did not live habitually in the exercise of the metaphysical
powers of deity, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omni
presence; but it is also certain that he possessed in full the divine
moral qualities. But the lack of biblical teaching does not prove
the doctrine of kenotism untrue. The kenosis is the answer of the
faith of many believers to the self-sacrifice of the Son of God,
and to the reality of Christ's human nature.
The expression of the Logos in- human personality with origina
tion in the conception did not assure the full realization of that
personality from the beginning. The Logos is not divided up
mathematically in space, but the fulness of the divine life is every
where present. Christ is as fully the God-man at infancy as at
manhood, though at a different stage of development. There was
no human nature not assumed, because the human was the divine
under the laws of development.
The Incarnation occurred at conception, but the development
was not complete until exaltation. As the "new man" in the
Christian grows to the stature of the fulness of Christ, so the new
life, as centered in Jesus, developed. Jesus grew — grew physically,
intellectually, morally, spiritually, passing through every stage
from immaturity tb perfection. He "learned obedience;" he "be
came perfect." In the process of this development, his experiences
not only corresponded to the usual human experiences, but were
the same. He endured temptation. He prayed to obtain strength.
He exercised trust in God. He worked miracles through divinely
mediated power. There was unity in Christ's nature, not omni
science along with human ignorance, but human ignorance alone
since Christ was human. There were not two wills, one the divine
will and the other the human always subject to the divine will; or
one "productive freedom" and the other "potence of freedom"
beside it ; but one will without which the unity of the personality
would suffer.
Nowhere is the unity of Christ's nature more apparent than in
the self -consciousness which he possessed, in which he recognized
himself to be but one personality; and the unity of self -conscious
ness can exist only when there is a unity of nature. In Christ the
self-consciousness developed as the personality developed in the
new organism. During the first part of that life the consciousness

THE LOGOS IN THE INDIVIDUAL 33
of his divine character and mission "followed the same law of
development as his other faculties," and so "his divine son-
ship .... was at first a matter of faith rather than knowledge or
immediate revelation."
Thus are the unity of nature and limitations of activities, and
the process of development, all consonant with the theses of psy
chology, and at the same time consistent with biblical teachings.
Grant that the Logos is immanent in the universe, that the divine
and human are akin, that the Logos is the principle of the human
race, that a new center of life is possible by the ever-energizing
presence of the Logos; then, the development of the Christ-life
under psychological conditions is manifestly the divine way.

CHAPTER VI
JESUS AND THE LOGOS
Among the many questions that arise upon the acceptance of
the vital relationship of the Logos and Jesus, one of the first is,
How does Jesus differ from other men? The first answer to this
might be that Jesus is God's son. Yet sonship is chiefly ethical in
its content, and there can be no double or puzzling sense in which
the word is applied both to Jesus and to the believer. Christ as son
is that which we ought to be and are destined to become. He is
the prototype and ideal of man at his highest development.
Jesus is also the ideal of holiness and sinlessness. Humanity
as capable of divinity never reached its completion until Jesus lived.
Christ during the years of earthly history passed through the ideal
man's eternal history. Such holiness, such completion of humanity,
such ideal history, can be reached only by one who is the Logos
incarnate, and not by one in whom God indwells as in any
believer. Sonship, holiness, perfection, are but the results and
expressions of the divine life, lived under human limitations. Yet
ethical union with the Father must not be made synonymous with
unity of nature. Hutton in his essays makes this mistake of con
fusing the effect with the cause, when he says :
The ultimate distinction between Christ's human nature and our own lay
not, it seems to me, in any exemption from human ignorance, sensitiveness,
temptation, but in the ultimate divinity expressed in His free will, which
moulded itself according to the Father's will without a moment's trembling
in the balance.
One fundamental difference between Jesus and all other men is
that Christ was the firstborn without whom none other ever attained
unto sonship and eternal life. He as son is the source of all
human sonship, as perfect, the source of all perfection, as holy, the
source of all human holiness. But the supreme difference, which
is the source of all differences, is that in man personality and sub
stance form a distinct entity, while Christ's nature is identical with
that of God. In the one, the Logos is the sustaining principle
separate from the human being sustained but without which the
personality would not exist; in the other, the Logos is identical
34

JESUS AND THE LOGOS 35
with the human being formed. In one, therefore, independence of
action, ethical separation, is possible; in the other, the will is con-
tinuative with the volition of the Logos, and the ethical union with
the Father ever the same.
The idea of God must be more ethical and less metaphysical.
Immutability and immobility are not the same in God. It is not the
sameness of expression that marks the immutability of God, but
the continuity of underlying purpose. Or as Canon Gore says :
"We can readily conceive that the attributes and powers of God
must be more wholly, than is the case with us, under the control of
the will. They must be less mechanical and more voluntary."
However, the difficulty which adherents of the doctrine of kenotism
meet begins at the gateway of creation itself, for the very creation
and sustentation of matter is a part of that self -limitation of God
that reaches its culmination in the person of Christ. Either God is
not immanent, or else there is no inherent difficulty in supposing
that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
The Logos is the source of life from which all things derive
their existence ; and yet the universe is not an extension of the
divine substance. The category of space does not apply to the
Logos for the fulness of his divinity is everywhere as an ever-
present factor. But the Logos has not exhausted himself in the
universe. He is immanent and transcendent both, and therefore
infinite in his resources. The Logos is God's self -revelation, and
in the Logos is the totality of God's revelations, now in nature,
now in humanity, and finally in a person; but the resourceful
energy of the Logos possesses further possibilities of revelation.
If the Christ is the upward movement of the fundamental life
beneath, not exhausted by this one germination and growth, might
not even Aquinas be correct in believing that more than one incar
nation was possible, though only one was accomplished?
The conclusion of this method of presentation is so apparent
that it scarcely needs statement — that while the Logos was on
earth in the limitations of humanity, he was, as ever, exerting his
world-control, and continuing in his eternal relations with the
Father. Any other form of the theory of depotentiation is at least
subject to three grave objections: that it changes the immanent
relations of the Trinity; that it makes finite what is infinite (not
to speak of the impossible return of the finite to the infinite) ;

36 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
and that it fails to explain the center of world-control during the
Incarnation. The world-control certainly during the Incarnation
was not vested in Jesus, nor is there any indication that it was
personally transferred to the Father.
The possibility of the twofold mode of life is met by the objec
tion that there could not be two centers of consciousness, or that
the kenosis was not real; but the practical answer to all meta
physical difficulties is to point to the fact that in his exalted life,
Christ had this twofold mode of existence, being the unifying
principle of the universe and yet locally manifested in his heavenly
form. That the condition of the exalted state cannot also be the
condition of the incarnate state, is what some do not seem to see
although it is clear that the presence of Christ in heaven, while
being a local and visible presence, was not necessarily limited to the
circumference of its human form. Jesus was the Logos, that is,
the fulness of the Godhead, but the Bible does not say the Logos is
Jesus and Jesus never says, I am the Logos. Rather the interest is
ethical, and John says that "these are written that ye may believe
that Jesus is the Christ (not that Jesus is the Logos) and that
believing ye may have life in his name." But the Gospel of John
begins with the significant statement, the Logos became flesh.
This view as presented above is neither so new nor unusual,
though with few exceptions never developed into a system.
Athanasius says that "the Logos, while present in the human body
and himself quickening it, was, without inconsistency, quickening
the universe as well and was in every process of nature." At the
Protestant Reformation, when the subject of the person of Christ
was most discussed, this phase of the theme was approximated by
the old Lutheran theology maintaining that the Logos while united
with humanity remained unchanged and governed the world omni-
presently. But what was regarded as a logical conclusion invalidated
the doctrine, that as all of the Logos must have been incar
nated, therefore the flesh of Christ must have been everywhere
present. Calvin seemed more truly to speak when he wrote in his
Institutes: "The Son of God descended in a wonderful manner
from heaven, but so that he did not leave heaven."
Of late there have been many direct and indirect references to
the subject of the double life, or more properly the single life
with a personal development under the conditions of time and

JESUS AND THE LOGOS 37
space. Dr. George Jamieson in A Revised Theology says that
"while the Logos was represented upon the earth in the person of
the Lord Jesus Christ, yet the Logos remained in his entirety in
heaven." And James Orr, while denying all kenotic theories,
makes this remarkable statement : "There is an immanent presence
of God in nature. So the Divine Son took upon him our nature
with its human limits, but above and beyond that, if we may so
express it, was the vast 'over-soul of his Divine consciousness.' "
The point of view is immaterial. Whether it is the "over-soul" as
representing the action of the transcendent God, or the "inner-
soul" as representing the immanent God, the life within and be
neath is the ever-present Logos-life, ever rising in more or less
permanent forms as the manifestation of God, but manifested at
the end of the times as Christ in the flesh.

CHAPTER VII
JESUS AND THE FATHER
Bruce has said in his Kingdom of God, that "a thoroughly
Christian idea of God is still a desideratum, and when the church
has reached it, the kingdom of God shall have come in power."
This is paralleled by the statement of one of the authors of Lux
Mundi that "every moral reformation within the church was a
protest of the conscience against unworthy views of God." Not
only does our view of Christ react upon our view of God, but the
preconceived and mechanical notions of God have ever driven the
church to behold in Christ the incarnation of a philosophically
conceived God.
The Gnostic idea of the Bythos, the neo-Platonlc idea of the
ov, and Renan's phrase "Our Father, the Abyss," are all of the
same stamp. A definition of a mathematical infinity, as applied to
God, is full of contradictions, and brings us to practical atheism.
If the difference between God and man is one between the infinite
and finite, then Mansel and Spencer are right in teaching that God
may be different from our conception of him, and Spencer, in con
cluding that the forms of human conduct are to be regulated irre
spective of him.
In answer to the philosophical idea of God, the believer first
says with Fiske that the "total elimination of anthropomorphism
from the idea of God is impossible;" then adds, that anthropomor
phism is not only necessary but correspondent with the fact. He
concludes that "God is eternally and essentially God-man. Man is
eternally and essentially man-God." He does not need to make
Christ real by saying that in Christ is "the human life of God,"
nor to see in Christ the incarnation of the human qualities of God.
He affirms that God and man are essentially one, and that a correct
idea of God is possible in an ideal human personality.
The complete revelation of God cannot be made except through
a human personality who shall be God in the flesh, revealing God's
eternal power and divinity. Only a personality could reveal God's
personality and moral character. The Incarnation is a climax in
revelation. If therefore a self -revelation is an immanent necessity
38

JESUS AND THE FATHER 39
to God, then is the Incarnation the goal of nature. If the idea of
God implies creation, it implies the Incarnation.
Christianity is not an excrescence. God's eternal plan was formed
with reference to Christ; creation and redemption are correlated.
The purpose of the Incarnation is co-ordinate with other purposes,
and the universe has as the completion of its idea the manifestation
of God in Christ. Whether the Logos would have become flesh
irrespective of sin cannot be answered except on a hypothesis con
trary to fact. Yet an affirmative answer seems possible from the
fact that Jesus accomplishes more for believers than to restore
them to the state of primeval man. The Logos in whom all
existed needed objective presentation. As Calvin says : "Had man
remained free from all taint, he was of too humble a condition to
penetrate to God without a mediator."
Christ is therefore an ethical revelation to the world. God
is to be interpreted through Christ, and the Son is a manifestation
of the moral and personal attributes of God. Christ, as the image
of God's substance, was the revelation of the essential personality
of God. That which is essential in God was not revealed in
Christ by examples of wonder-working and knowledge and
ability to annihilate space, which miraculous power was as di
vinely mediated as in any other man, for finitum capax infiniti can
never be true as respects the metaphysical qualities.
God is love, and Christ was the incarnation of love. Such an
idea of God, Dorner strenuously advocates — "viewing God, not as
mere holiness and righteousness, nor as mere goodness and com-
municableness in general, but as love which possesses power over
itself — in one word, as holy love." Then may the Incarnation be
a concentration of love, a qualitative localizing of God in humanity.
Hayden always manifested God in sweet melodies, because, he
said, "The divinity should always be expressed by love and good
ness." The essential part of God's nature is not in those qualities
that pass our comprehension, but in his ethical nature which is
summed up in the word Father, of which Christ in his sonship is
a true revelation. ,
Love sacrifices, and the sacrifice of Christ is the revealing of
the eternal sacrifice of God. Nowhere in the New Testament is
the Incarnation spoken of as if the matter of wonder was in the
method of the Incarnation rather than the motive. It is always

40 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
"so loved that he gave ;" "for the suffering of death crowned with
glory and honor ;" "let this same mind be in you." It was the love
of the Father that necessitated the revelation of the Son. The form
depended upon the purpose to be accomplished; and since human
beings were to be saved, the abode was established "in the flesh."
"The very God;" think, Abib; dost thou think?
So, the All-Great, were the All-Loving too —
So, through the thunder comes a human voice
Saying, "O heart, I made, a heart beats here !
Face, my hands fashioned, see it in myself !
Thou hast no power nor may'st conceive of mine :
But love I gave thee, with myself to love,
And thou must love me who have died for thee !"

CHAPTER VIII
JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
The New Testament plainly teaches that believers are not only
to be transformed into the image of Christ, being created anew
after the divine image ; but that they are even now vitally united
with him. Believers are "in Christ;" they are the branches, he the
vine; he is the head, they the body. We are planted - together
(o-v/u<£vtoi) in the likeness of his death. From the world we are
"added unto the Lord" finding in him the channel of the com
munication of spiritual life, and in him not only a fellowship, but a
communion of nature.
This union is consummated by the action of the Holy Spirit
upon the human nature. The early church looked much upon the
expression of the presence of the Spirit in the external manifesta
tions similar to those of Pentecost; but under a present psychology
as well as the biblical teaching, since "The wind bloweth where
it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell
whence it cometh, and whither it goeth," it is to be concluded that
the immanent action of the Holy Spirit in human nature is below
consciousness. The beginning of this new life and vital union to
Christ is "of the Spirit." We are born of the Spirit, and it is the
Spirit that quickeneth. The Spirit is not only the medium of this
change, but also is the assurance of new life. Christ is in us by
the presence of the Holy Spirit, and is the creative and unifying
principle of the new moral life whereby we become partakers
of the divine nature in Christ.
But that which the Holy Spirit accomplishes for believers as
the agent of regeneration and growth he accomplished in Jesus.
The Bible never represents the birth, growth, and consummation of
Christ's life as due to the divine nature united to the human, but
always as through the Holy Spirit. The Holy 5pirit is the
mediator of all finite action and progress, physical, intellectual, and
spiritual. The Christ of history, as well as the Christ within us,
passes through the phases of human progress by the Holy Spirit.
The likeness is striking. Christ is born through the action of the
Spirit, and so are we. The Holy Spirit abides in both alike. The
41

42 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
Father seals the Son by the descent of the Spirit at the time of
baptism; and has also sealed us giving us the earnest of the
Spirit. The Spirit is Christ's anointing, so also is he ours. Jesus
was led by the Spirit, and so also as many as are led by the Spirit
of God, they are the sons of God. Jesus rejoices in the Spirit,
and the fruit of the Spirit in believers is joy. Jesus even performed
miracles, not by the inherent power that is supposed to dwell in
the Word made flesh, but by the Spirit of God ; it is also after the
Spirit is come that we can ask anything in Christ's name and he
will do it for us. Jesus returned from the Jordan "full of the Holy
Spirit," and the disciples were filled with the Spirit to fit them
for their various activities. Jesus is declared to be the Son of
God with power according to the Spirit of holiness; "but if the
Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you,
he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall also quicken
your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you."
Thus the Holy Spirit was to Jesus what he is to us, being the
principle of personal life for both, and accomplishing in us all that
he accomplished in Christ. By the descent of the Spirit upon
Christ, he is declared to be the Son of God, that is, ethically one
with God; in like manner as many as are led by the spirit of God,
they are the sons of God.
What then, is the relation of Jesus to believers in this process,
and in what way is Jesus the source of our own spiritual life
through the Spirit? One answer to these questions is an appeal
to the constitution of the immanent Trinity. Unfortunately, there
are no commonly accepted views as to the internal relations of the
members of the Godhead, and an independent discussion would
become a previous question to the present consideration. One
must agree with Dorner in saying that "It may be asserted that
our age especially needs a living renascence of the apprehension of
a triune God, and indeed a new formulation of the concept of God
generally by means of that renascence." The doctrine of the
Trinity is not yet complete, and yet the doctrine is necessary in
opposing all unworthy views of God, and in furnishing an ade
quate foundation for the doctrine of redemption.
However, no view of the immanent Trinity would be of value
in the present discussion, except as it affected the theory of the
incarnate life of the Logos. If, for example, the Spirit is the

JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT 43
very condition of the personal self-conscious life of God, then the
office of the Spirit in the life of God might be considered analogous
to the similar work as performed in the person of Christ, and as
far as the new regenerate personality is concerned, in believers.
President Strong says, "Christ represents the centrifugal action of
the deity, but there must be a centripetal action also. In the Holy
Spirit the movement is completed and the divine activity and
thought returns into itself." If this view were to be accepted, the
work of the Holy Spirit in Christ and in believers could be con
sidered a part of the same great process, having its origin in the
eternal relationship of the Godhead.
Athanasius was right when he wrote the following:
God calls men, who are created, sons, as though they had been begotten.
As they are created natures, they can only become sons by receiving the
Spirit of him who is by nature and truly Son. He who was our creator,
becomes our Father, from which it is clear that we are not by nature sons
but the Son who is in us. Nor is God by nature our Father, but the Father of
the Word, which is in us. But the Father designates those sons in whom
he sees his Son.
The Spirit is not simply a companion of the human soul, in
dwelling as a separate principle. Our spiritual nature is a new
life-organization brought about by the Holy Spirit. But this new
nature is vitally united with that of Christ. Christ is reborn in
every individual in whom the Holy Spirit takes up his abode.
Truly it seems to be the meaning of I Cor. 12:12, the church is
"the Christ." Christ is the head of which the church is the body,
and by one Spirit are we all baptized into this one body. The body
of Christ perpetuates the union of humanity with the Godhead.
Yet this union with Christ through the Spirit does not destroy
the personality. One cannot say as did one of Weigel's followers
to another: "I am Christ Jesus, the living Word of God; I have
redeemed thee by my sinless sufferings." Each man is a free
personality who by virtue of his faith in Christ is a reincarnation.
The Christ-life is not subversive to the highest personality, since
by the action of the Spirit the bond between Christ and the soul
is spontaneous and reciprocal.
Nevertheless, the new species of life as represented in the body
of Christ could never have received its origination outside of
Christ. The Spirit's organizing power must first be found in an
individual, that is, Christ; and from this source the divine life

44 THE INCARNATION AND MODERN THOUGHT
flows to the world. There must be a dynamic source of the
regenerated personal life in humanity, and that source is Christ.
Such is the evolutionary phase of the Incarnation that Christ is
the first of a new type from which the successive individuals spring ;
the firstborn among many brethren. This is the purpose of the
Incarnation, to establish a focus of the new human life, for a
higher order of created beings. Without Christ, therefore, God
could not have saved the world. Faith is the contact whereby the
Spirit ingrafts us into the Son, that from him as the vine we as the
branches may receive sustenance. "Jesus is the object to be
assimilated, the Spirit is the assimilating power." Thus is it ever
true — "A man may become a God-like man, but never a God-man;
this last, Christ alone remains."

* v*'. ¦*..:-: