and ascribed to them particular actions and experiences. The Gnostic distinction of the Jesus _patibilis_ ("capable of suffering") and the Christ [Greek: apathes] ("impassible") is essentially identical with the view set forth by Tertullian adv. Prax., and this proves that the doctrine of the two natures is simply nothing else than the Gnostic, i.e., scientific, adaptation of the formula: "filius dei filius hominis factus." No doubt the old early-Christian interest still makes itself felt in the _assertion_ of the one person. Accordingly we can have no historical understanding of Tertullian's Christology or even of that of Irenaeus without taking into account, as has not yet been done, the Gnostic distinction of Jesus and Christ, as well as those old traditional formulae: "deus passus, deus crucifixus est" ("God suffered, God was crucified").[607] But beyond doubt the prevailing conception of Christ in Irenaeus is the idea that there was the most complete unity between his divine and human natures; for it is the necessary consequence of his doctrine of redemption, that "_Jesus Christus factus est, quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse quod et ipse_"[608] ("Jesus Christ became what we are in order that we might become what he himself is"). But, in accordance with the recapitulation theory, Irenaeus developed the "factus est quod sumus nos" in such a way that the individual portions of the life of Christ, as corresponding to what we ought to have done but did not do, receive the value of saving acts culminating in the death on the cross. Thus he not only regards Jesus Christ as "salvation and saviour and saving" ("salus et salvator et salutare"),[609] but he also views his whole life as a work of salvation. All that has taken place between the conception and the ascension is an inner necessity in this work of salvation. This is a highly significant advance beyond the conception of the Apologists. Whilst in their case the history of Jesus seems to derive its importance almost solely from the fulfilment of prophecy, it acquires in Irenaeus an independent and fundamental significance. Here also we recognise the influence of "Gnosis," nay, in many places he uses the same expressions as the Gnostics, when he sees salvation accomplished, on the one hand, in the mere appearance of Jesus Christ as the second Adam, and on the other, in the simple acknowledgment of this appearance.[610] But he is distinguished from them by the fact that he decidedly emphasises the personal acts of Jesus, and that he applies the benefits of Christ's work not to the "pneumatic" _ipso facto_, but in principle to all men, though practically only to those who listen to the Saviour's words and adorn themselves with works of righteousness.[611] Irenaeus presented this work of Christ from various points of view. He regards it as the realisation of man's original destiny, that is, being in communion with God, contemplating God, being imperishable like God; he moreover views