iv] Some Implications of the Incarnation 1 39 



Does this seem a difficult, contradictory statement? 

 It is no more so than the doctrine, now universally 

 accepted by theologians, that the Godhead is immanent 

 in the world and in time and at the same time tran- 

 scendent in the eternal sphere. The two conceptions 

 differ only in degree, not in kind. The immanence is 

 completed in a fuller sense: that is all 1 . Of their ulti- 

 mate meaning we can understand little. Perhaps the 

 most we can do is to say that while the Transcendent 

 God knows all and sees the end completed and whole, 

 as well as knowing His own becoming, the Immanent 

 God knows only becoming, and cannot, in virtue of His 

 own self-limitation, know the end. Yet this form of 

 words is unsatisfactory, for it seems to imply a division 

 of the Godhead, which is not there; we can intuitively 

 grasp the correlative truths of immanence and tran 

 scendence, but we cannot express them in words, nor 

 formulate them so as to satisfy our intellect. 



All we are concerned with here, however, is to show 

 that no fresh difficulty is introduced by the idea of the 

 complete kenosis of the Godhead in Christ*. It differs 

 only in degree from immanence. 



A friend with whom I was discussing my rough 

 sketch of the chapters on personality, and the general 

 view therein developed of the triune nature of person- 

 ality, made the penetrating remark, " If you apply that 

 to the Personality of Christ you will be making God 

 Immanent in Himself." This criticism conveys both a 



1 Sec ch. viii. 



1 In considering immanence at all we are really brought up 

 against the problem of the consciousness of God. for it appears 

 as if there must be two consciousnesses, and that involves an 

 impossible dualism. In the consciousness of Christ the problem 

 reaches its most acute phase. This question will be discussed at 

 length in the final chapter, though it is touched upon in that on 

 Preliminary Considerations. 



