,,monophysitism  ,,past ,,and ,,present 
,a ,,study ,,in ,,christology    ,,by   
,a4 ,a4 ,,luce1 ,m4,c41 ,d4,d4          
,,captain ,,late #ab,,th ,,royal ,,irish
 ,,rifles  ,,fellow ,,of ,,trinity      
,,college1 ,,dublin      ,,london       
,,society ,,for ,,promoting ,,christian 
,,knowledge  ,,new ,,york3 ,,the        
,,macmillan ,,co4  #aibj     ,,printed  
,,by  ,,william ,,clowes ,,and ,,sons1  
,,limited1  ,,london ,,and ,,beccles    
,,contents   ,,chapter     ,i4  ,,the   
,,metaphysical ,,basis ,,of             
,,monophysitism   ,,ii4  ,,the ,,origins
 ,,of ,,monophysitism  ,,iii4           
,,monophysite ,,doctrine   ,,iv4  ,,the 
,,ethos ,,of ,,monophysitism    ,v4     
,,monophysitism ,,and ,,modern          
,,psychology   ,,vi4  ,,monophysitism   
,,in ,,the ,,present ,,day     ,,books  
,,consulted ,,in ,,the  ,,preparation   
,,of ,,this ,,essay   ,j4 ,s4           
,,assemani1 ,bibliotheca ,orientalis1   
especially the ,introductory            
,dissertation to ,vol4 ,,ii4  ,a4       

,,harnack1 ,history of ,dogma1          
translated by ,speirs and ,millar4  ,j4 
,c4 ,,robertson1 ,history of the        
,christian ,church4  ,,windelband1      
,history of ,philosophy1 translated by  
,tufts4  ,,wright1 ,short ,history of   
,syriac ,literature4  ,h4 ,,bergson1    
,les donnes immdiates de la conscience1 
,matire et ,mmoire1 ,l'volution         
cratrice4     ,,monophysitism ,,past    
,,and ,,present   ,,chapter ,i  ,,the   
,,metaphysical ,,basis ,,of             
,,monophysitism  ,monophysitism was a   
,christological heresy of the fifth     
century4  ,it was condemned by the      
church in the middle of that century at 
the council of ,chalcedon4  ,surviving  
its condemnation it flourished in the   
,east for several centuries4  ,its      
adherents formed themselves into a      
powerful church with orders and         
succession of their own4  ,although the 
monophysite church has long since lost  
all influence1 it is still in being4    
,the ,coptic and ,jacobite churches of  

,egypt and ,mesopotamia1 respectively1  
preserve to this day the doctrines and  
traditions of the primitive             
monophysites4  ,the history of the sect1
 however1 does not concern us here4     
,the writer's purpose is to review its  
doctrine4  ,monophysitism is a system of
 religious thought1 and1 as such1 its   
importance is out of all proportion to  
the present or even the past position of
 the churches that professed it4  ,its  
significance lies in its universality4  
,it is grounded in the nature of the    
human mind4  ,it is found in ,west as   
well as ,east1 to-day as well as in the 
early centuries of our era4  ,wherever  
men bring intellect to bear on the      
problem of ,christ's being1 the tendency
 to regard ,him as monophysite is       
present4  ,an examination of the heresy 
is of practical value4  ,our            
subject-matter is not an oriental       
antique or a curiosity of the intellect1
 but a present-day problem of vital     
moment to the ,faith4  ,if we are       

concerned with a half-forgotten heresy1 
it is because a study of that heresy    
serves both as a preventive against     
error and as an introduction to the     
truth4  ,the doctor studies disease to  
ascertain the conditions of health2     
pathological cases are often his surest 
guide to the normal2 just so the study  
of heresy is the best guide to orthodox 
,christology4 ,it was in conflict with  
monophysitism that the church of the    
fifth century brought to completion her 
dogmatic utterances about ,christ2 and  
the individual thinker to-day can gain  
the surest grasp of true ,christology by
 examining the monophysite perversion4  
,with this practical purpose in view1 we
 now proceed to an analysis of the      
heresy4  ,monophysitism is a body of    
doctrine4  ,it is a dogmatic system1 in 
which the individual dogmata are        
controlled by a principle or dominant   
idea4  ,as all the particular doctrines 
of monophysitism depend on this         
principle1 and1 as it is not properly a 

theological concept1 but one borrowed   
from philosophy1 we may call it the     
metaphysical basis of monophysitism4    
,an intelligent grasp of this basic     
principle is necessary to an            
appreciation of the whole system4       
,accordingly1 our first concern is to   
ascertain and exhibit this metaphysical 
basis4  ,in subsequent chapters we shall
 analyse in detail the doctrines        
specifically monophysite and trace the  
,christological errors back to their    
source in metaphysic4    ,,the ,a       
,,priori ,,and ,a ,,posteriori ,,in     
,,christology  ,the following           
considerations prove the necessity of   
this procedure4 ,two methods of         
examining the being of ,christ can be   
distinguished4 ,according to the one    
method the facts of ,his life are       
reviewed as they are presented in the   
,new ,testament1 and a formula is then  
constructed to fit them4  ,the other    
method starts from the concept of a     
mediator between ,god and man4  ,it     

supposes that concept actualised1 and   
asks the question1 ,of what nature must 
such a mediator be8  ,these methods may 
be distinguished1 but they cannot be    
separated4  ,no one1 however scientific1
 can come to a study of the life of     
,jesus with an absolutely open mind4    
,presuppositions are inevitable4        
,similarly1 as the a priori thinker     
develops his concept of a mediator1 he  
compares the results of his thinking at 
every stage with the picture presented  
in the ,gospel story1 and that picture  
unavoidably modifies his deductions4    
,both diphysite and monophysite used a  
combination of these two methods4 ,each 
party took the recorded facts and       
interpreted them in accordance with     
their notion of what a mediator should  
be4  ,both parties studied the same     
facts2 but the a priori of their thought
 differed1 and so their conclusions     
differed4  ,in the realm of ,christology
 this a priori of thought is of         
paramount importance4  ,preconceived    

opinions inevitably colour our mental   
picture of ,christ4  ,readers of the    
,gospel narrative find there the ,christ
 they are prepared to find4  ,on this   
well-recognised fact we base our        
contention that an examination of any   
,christological system must begin with  
the philosophy on which the system      
rests4  ,that philosophy supplies the a 
priori1 or the presupposition1 or the   
metaphysical basis1 whichever name we   
prefer4  ,we do not suggest that        
theologians have consciously adopted a  
metaphysical principle as the basis of  
their beliefs1 and then have applied it 
to the special problem of ,christology4 
,that is a possible method but not the  
usual one4  ,in most cases the          
philosophic basis remains in the        
background of consciousness2 its        
existence is unrecognised and its       
influence undetected4  ,if ,christian   
thinkers took the trouble to analyse the
 basis of their beliefs about ,christ1  
they would not halt1 as they so often   

do1 at the stage of monophysitism4  ,if 
they laid bare to the foundations the   
structure of their faith1 the danger of 
error would be reduced to a minimum4    
,viewed from the standpoint of timeless 
reason1 monophysitism is based on a     
definite metaphysical idea4  ,not all   
monophysites have consciously adopted   
that basis2 many1 had they recognised   
its presence1 would have rejected it4   
,but it was present as a tendency4  ,a  
tendency may be neutralised by          
counteracting causes2 but it has its    
effect1 and sooner or later it will     
produce positive results4    ,,the      
,,three ,,typical ,,christologies  ,the 
same truth holds of the other           
,christological systems4  ,a different  
metaphysical idea lies at the root of   
each4  ,nestorian1 monophysite1         
catholic1 these three were the main     
types of ,christologian in the fifth    
century4  ,each studied ,christ's life4 
,after studying it1 the ,nestorian said 
of ,him1 ,there are two persons here4   

,not so1 said the monophysite1 ,i see   
but one incarnate nature of ,god the    
,word4  ,the catholic replied1 ,you are 
both wrong2 there is one person in two  
natures4  ,all three types deserve close
 study4  ,the thinkers were devout and  
sincere1 and1 for the most part1 able   
men4  ,there is no question here of     
superficial uninformed thought1 nor of  
moral obliquity4  ,the disagreement was 
due not to their vision but to their    
view point1 not to the object of their  
thought or the process of their         
thinking1 but to their different        
presuppositions and starting points4    
,presented in this way the monophysite  
and other ,christological controversies 
of the fifth and sixth centuries become 
phases of the cosmic problem4  ,they    
thus regain the dignity which is theirs 
by right1 and which they lose in the    
ordinary church histories4  ,the heat of
 passion they aroused becomes           
intelligible4  ,it was no battle about  
words4  ,the stakes were high4  ,the    

controversialists championed            
far-reaching principles with a decisive 
influence on the course of thought and  
conduct4  ,unfriendly critics usually   
portray the ,christologians as          
narrow-minded and audacious4  ,so1 no   
doubt1 they were1 but they were not     
wrong-headed4  ,if the matters in       
dispute between theist1 deist1 and      
pantheist are trivialities1 then and    
then only can we regard the enterprise  
of the ,christologians as chimerical and
 their achievements as futile4  ,the    
different formulae represented attitudes
 of mind fundamentally opposed4  ,no    
peace between catholic and monophysite  
was possible4  ,they had conflicting    
conceptions of ultimate truth4          
,,dependence ,,of ,,christology ,,on    
,,philosophy  ,we mentioned above the   
two other chief ,christological systems1
 the ,nestorian and the catholic4  ,no  
analysis of monophysitism which omitted 
a reference to these systems would be   
complete4  ,they were three nearly      

contemporary attempts to solve the same 
problem4  ,the comparison is of special 
interest when1 as here1 fundamental     
principles are under examination4  ,it  
demonstrates the closeness of the       
connection between the ,christological  
and the cosmic problems4  ,in each of   
the three cases we find that a school of
 philosophy corresponds to the school of
 theology1 and that the philosopher's   
dominant idea about the cosmos decided  
the theologian's interpretation of      
,christ4  ,this connection between      
philosophy and ,christology is of early 
date4 ,from the nature of both          
disciplines it had to be4  ,even in     
apostolic days the meaning of the       
incarnation was realised4  ,christ was  
apprehended as a being of more than     
national or terrestrial importance4 ,the
 ,pauline and ,johannine ,christologies 
gave cosmic significance to ,his work1  
and so inevitably to ,his ,person4      
,theologians made the tremendous surmise
 that ,jesus of ,nazareth was no other  

than the ,logos of the                  
,neo-,pythagoreans or the ,wise ,one of 
the ,stoics4  ,that is to say1 ,he      
stands not only between ,god and man1   
but between ,creator and creation4 ,he  
is the embodiment of the cosmic         
relation4  ,from early days1 then1      
philosophy and religion were working at 
the same problem2 their paths met at the
 one goal of the ,ideal ,person who     
satisfied both head and heart4  ,the    
systematic ,christology of the fifth    
century was1 therefore1 a completion of 
the work begun in the first4    ,,the   
,,christological ,,and ,,the ,,cosmic   
,,problems  ,the essence of the         
,christological problem is the question 
as to the union of natures in ,christ4  
,are there two natures divine and human 
in ,him8  ,is each distinct from the    
other and from the person8  ,is the     
distinction conceptual or actual8  ,the 
incarnation is a union4  ,is it a real  
union8  ,if so1 what did it unite8  ,we 
have seen that such questions cannot be 

approached without presuppositions4     
,what these presuppositions shall be is 
decided in the sphere of a wider        
problem4 ,this wider problem is known as
 the cosmic problem4  ,the solution     
given to it prescribes the              
presuppositions of any attempt to solve 
the specialised problem4  ,we shall     
proceed to sketch the cosmic problem1   
and to indicate the three main types of 
answers given to it4  ,it will then be  
evident that these three answers find   
their respective counterparts in the    
,nestorian1 monophysite and the catholic
 solutions of the ,christological       
problem4  ,as man's intellectual powers 
mature1 two supreme generalisations     
force themselves on his consciousness4  
,he conceives his experience as a whole 
and calls it the world2 he conceives the
 basis of his experience as a whole and 
calls it ,god4  ,to some minds the      
world1 to some minds ,god1 is the       
greater reality2 but both concepts are  
present in varying proportions wherever 

thought becomes self-conscious4  ,here  
we have in its lowest terms the material
 for the ontological question1 the first
 and the last problem of philosophy4    
,god and the world1 at first dimly      
conceived and scarcely differentiated1  
gradually separate and take shape in the
 mind as distinct entities4  ,the       
concepts become principles1 fixed by    
language and mental imagery4  ,the gulf 
between them widens until they stand at 
opposite poles of thought4  ,in their   
isolation they constitute a standing    
challenge to the mind of man4  ,if he   
thinks the world in terms of time1 he   
must postulate a creator4  ,if he thinks
 the world out of time1 he is forced to 
conceive a ground of the world's being4 
,the world cannot be thought without    
,god nor ,god without the world4  ,the  
one necessitates the other4  ,yet when  
the thinker tries to define the terms1  
he can at first only do so by negatives4
  ,the world is what ,god is not1 and   
,god is what the world is not4  ,the two

 primary concepts thus attract and repel
 each other4  ,the mind's first task is 
to grasp them in their difference4  ,it 
cannot rest there1 but must proceed to  
attempt to reunite them and grasp them  
in their unity4  ,thus the main problem 
of philosophy is to conceive and find   
expression for the relation between ,god
 and the world4 ,christology attacks    
essentially the same problem4           
,christology is an attempt to define the
 relation between ,god and the world in 
terms of personality4  ,this relation   
has been conceived in three modes4      
,according to the level of thought      
reached1 or1 as led by their disposition
 and education1 men have made their     
choice between three mediating concepts4
 ,hence derive three divergent types of 
thought and three outlooks on life      
fundamentally opposed4  ,we shall take  
them in their logical sequence for      
convenience of treatment4  ,the         
historical connection is of no          
importance for our present purpose1 but 

it is noteworthy that the time order    
both of the schools of philosophy and of
 the corresponding ,christological      
systems follows approximately the       
logical order4    ,,the ,,first         
,,solution ,,of ,,the ,,cosmic          
,,problem--,,dualism  ,the first        
attempted solution of the cosmic problem
 is best expressed in the concept       
co-existence4  ,god and the world       
co-exist4  ,god is1 and the world is2   
their relation is expressed by an and4  
,god and the world is the truth1 all    
that man can and need know4  ,this      
solution is verbal4  ,it leaves the     
problem more or less as it finds it4    
,the two principles remain ultimates2   
neither is reduced to the other4  ,god  
still stands outside the world and the  
world outside ,god4  ,neither can       
explain the other4  ,this dualism is the
 lowest stage of ontological thought4   
,the thinker sees the problem1 only to  
turn away from it4  ,he surmises that   
there is some relation between the two2 

but he cannot define it1 and it remains 
ineffectual4  ,this was ,plato's early  
standpoint4  ,he established the idea as
 the truth of the thing1 but he failed  
to find expression for the relation     
between idea and ideate4  ,he took      
refuge in symbolical language1 and spoke
 of the thing as a copy of the idea or  
as a participant in it4  ,but as there  
was no causation on the one side or     
dependence on the other side1 all that  
the earlier ,platonic philosophy        
achieved was in its ideal world to      
duplicate the real4  ,plato's heaven    
simply co-exists with the world1 and the
 relation between them is merely verbal4
  ,this metaphysical idea survived      
,plato and ,plato's system1 and passed  
into common currency4  ,it found and    
still finds expression in numerous      
speculative and practical systems4  ,in 
religious ontology we find it in deism4 
,according to the deist there was once  
at a definite point of time a relation  
between ,god and the world1 the relation

 of creation4 ,but1 creation finished1  
the relation ceased4  ,in other words1  
,god created the world1 and then        
withdrew into ,himself1 leaving the     
world to work out its own salvation4    
,the deist believes in ,god2 but his is 
a self-contained ,god1 who does not     
interfere in the course of things or    
continue creating4  ,such a conception  
of ,god is useless for religious        
purposes1 because it represents ,him as 
out of all relation with the world4     
,,christological                        
,,dualism--,,nestorianism  ,the         
,christological counterpart of dualism  
and of deism is ,nestorianism4 ,the     
,nestorians halt at the lowest stage of 
,christological thought4 ,they admit    
,christ to be the meeting-point of ,god 
and man1 but they nullify the admission 
by introducing dualism into the person  
of ,christ4 ,they set out to find the   
solution of the cosmic problem in       
,christ2 they endeavour to express the  
relation between ,god and the world in  

terms of ,his personality4  ,they bring 
the two concepts together1 but they do  
not weld them4  ,faith and courage fail 
them at the critical moment4  ,they     
substitute an association for a union4  
,they leave ,god and man co-existing in 
,christ1 but not united there4          
,nestorianism is a halfway house on the 
road from ,arianism to ,christianity4   
,it is a weak compromise4  ,the deity in
 ,christ is admitted1 but its unity with
 humanity denied4  ,the divine remains  
external to the human nature4           
,according to the doctrine ascribed to  
,nestorius two persons1 the son of ,god 
and the son of ,mary1 at the ,baptism   
were mysteriously associated4  ,the     
union consists partly in identity of    
name1 partly in the gradual deepening of
 the association4 ,as ,jesus grew in    
spiritual power and knowledge and       
obedience to the divine will1 the union 
which at first was relative gradually   
deepened towards an absolute union4     
,divinity was not ,his birthright1 but  

acquired4  ,thus throughout ,his life   
the two personalities remained external 
to one another4  ,the divine worked     
miracles2 the human suffered4  ,the     
,nestorian could pride himself on having
 preserved the reality of the divine and
 the reality of the human2 he could     
worship the one and imitate the other4  
,but his system was non-,christian1     
because it excludes the element of      
mediation4  ,a dual personality could   
never make atonement or redeem humanity4
  ,god and man in ,christ were brought  
into nominal contact1 but there was     
provided no channel by which the divine 
virtue might pass into the human4  ,the 
,nestorian remains content with his     
solution1 because the background of his 
thought is dualist4  ,the thinker's     
attitude to the cosmic problem decides  
his attitude to the ,christological     
problem4  ,content to couple ,god and   
the world by an and1 he similarly       
couples by an and the ,logos and ,jesus 
,christ4  ,dividing ,god from the world1

 he divides ,christ4  ,abandoning       
metaphysical relation between the cosmic
 principles1 he despairs of finding1 or1
 rather1 has no motive for seeking a    
personal relation between ,god and man  
in the being of ,christ4    ,,second    
,,solution ,,of ,,the ,,cosmic          
,,problem--,,monism  ,the second        
solution given to the cosmic problem is 
of special importance for our thesis4   
,it had a direct influence on           
monophysitism1 and may be regarded as   
supplying the metaphysical basis for    
that heresy4  ,it represents an advance 
to a higher stage of thought1 just as   
monophysitism1 which depends on it1 is  
an advance on ,nestorianism1 and has    
always been regarded as a more venial   
heresy4  ,the mind finding no           
satisfaction in dualism advances to     
monism4  ,the spectacle of two unrelated
 ultimate principles impels it to seek  
and1 if necessary1 to invent some mode  
of reconciling them4  ,explain it as we 
may1 the craving for unity1 for         

synthesis1 for mediation is radical in  
human thought4  ,the mind cannot rest at
 anything short of it4  ,god and the    
world1 held asunder conceptually or only
 nominally united1 constitute a         
contradiction in excelsis1 and1 as such1
 provide an irresistible motive for     
further and deeper thought4  ,as is     
natural1 the swing of the pendulum      
carries the mind to the opposite        
extreme4  ,co-existence failing to      
supply the required solution1 the key is
 sought in identity4  ,god and the world
 are thought as identical4  ,the terms  
are connected by the copula4  ,god is   
the world1 and the world is ,god4  ,this
 is the truth of being1 for the monist4 
,the two principles are merged in one1  
and the contradiction solved by an      
assertion of the identity of the        
contradictories4  ,monism takes two     
forms4  ,it may be either materialist or
 spiritual4  ,one term must be selected 
as the reality1 and the other written   
off as an illusion4  ,if the thinker's  

bent of mind be scientific1 he is       
disposed to make the material world the 
only objective reality1 and ,god becomes
 simply a working hypothesis or a       
creation of the subjective mind4  ,it   
would be beside our purpose to do more  
than mention this phase of monism4      
,spiritual monism1 however1 requires    
lengthier treatment2 it is of vital     
importance to our subject4  ,in this    
case the mind takes sides with ,god as  
against the world4  ,god is the reality 
and the world the illusion4  ,the world 
is ,god1 in spite of appearances to the 
contrary4 ,as world it has no           
substantive reality2 it has no existence
 for self4 ,it is the shadow of ,god1 an
 emanation from ,him1 or an aspect of   
,him4 ,like dualism1 monism is only a   
sham solution of the cosmic problem4    
,it fails to keep prominent the idea of 
relation4  ,a relation must relate4 ,if 
its terms are merged1 the relation falls
 to the ground4  ,a relation must be    
such that1 while the terms are unified1 

they are preserved as realities4  ,it   
must both unify and keep distinct4  ,to 
abandon either ,god or the world is a   
counsel of despair4  ,to detract from   
the reality of either is treason to fact
 and tantamount to a shelving of the    
cosmic problem4    ,,philosophical ,,and
 ,,theological ,,monism  ,the systems   
that identify ,god and the world range  
from the crude materialism of           
,democritus to the lofty spiritualism of
 ,plotinus4  ,stoic cosmology occupies  
an intermediate position4  ,the ,stoic  
was nominally a pantheist1 but he seems 
to have oscillated between a spiritual  
and a materialist explanation of the    
universal being4  ,the monist system    
that prepared the soil for monophysitism
 and constantly fostered its growth was 
,neo-,platonism4  ,in the hands of      
,plotinus all the main elements of      
spiritual monism were worked up into a  
speculative philosophy with a profound  
bearing on practical life4  ,the world  
and the human spirit1 for ,plotinus1    

were simply manifestations of ,god4  ,he
 taught that1 as light issues from the  
sun and proceeds forth on its way1      
growing gradually dimmer till it passes 
into darkness1 so the world of thought  
and thing has no true being apart from  
,god1 from whom it proceeded and to whom
 it returns4  ,spiritual monism found in
 ,alexandria a congenial home4          
,blending there with oriental mysticism 
it produced a crop of gnostic           
speculative systems1 in all of which    
,acosmism or a denial of the world was  
the keynote4  ,whether the problem was  
conceived in terms of being or of value1
 the result was the same4  ,the world   
has no true being4  ,its appearance of  
solidity is a sham4  ,it has no value4  
,compared with ,god1 it is negligible4  
,it is but the shadow cast by the       
eternal sun4  ,the monophysite tenets   
traceable to monism will be considered  
in detail in later chapters4  ,here our 
concern is to show that monism supplies 
the metaphysical principle on which the 

heresy is based2 that1 as dualism       
provides the a priori of ,nestorian     
thought1 monism provides the a priori of
 monophysite thought4                   
,,christological                        
,,monism--,,monophysitism  ,the         
essential doctrine of monophysitism is  
the assertion of the absolute numerical 
unity of the person of ,christ4  ,it    
carries to extremes its denial of the   
dual personality maintained by the      
,nestorians4  ,all vestiges of duality  
were banished from ,his being2 there    
were not two persons3 there were not    
even two natures4  ,there was in ,christ
 only the one nature of ,god the ,word4 
,the human nature at the incarnation was
 absorbed into the divine4  ,it no more 
has substantive existence than has the  
world in a pantheistic system4  ,this is
 monism in terms of personality4  ,its  
presuppositions are those of a mind     
imbued with an all-powerful feeling for 
unity4  ,it is faced with the problem of
 reconciling ,god and the world in the  

person of ,jesus ,christ4 ,it brings to 
that problem a prejudice against the    
real being and the real value of the    
world4  ,hence it is led to draw the    
false conclusion that humanity1 which is
 part of the world1 is not a permanent  
element in the highest truth2 that even 
perfect humanity1 humanity              
representative of all that is noblest in
 the race1 cannot be allowed true       
existence in the ,ideal4  ,monism       
abandons the universal relation by      
abandoning one or other of the terms to 
be related4  ,monophysitism cuts a      
similar knot in a similar fashion4  ,it 
jettisons redemption by excluding from  
the ,redeemer all kinship with that     
which ,he came to redeem4  ,nominally   
admitting human nature into union with  
deity1 it destroys the reality of that  
transaction at a stroke by making the   
two natures identical4 ,so the          
incarnation1 for the monophysite1       
becomes a myth2 no change in the nature 
of the ,logos took place at it1 and1    

consequently1 no change in the nature of
 the ,man ,christ ,jesus4  ,we may trace
 the likeness between the cosmic and the
 ,christological problems still further4
  ,monism is forced to attempt to give  
some account of the world's apparent    
reality4  ,similarly monophysitism had  
to try to explain those facts of        
,christ's life which on the face of the 
,gospel narrative are human and normal4 
,the explanation offered is essentially 
the same in both systems4  ,the monist  
asserts that the world exists only in   
the mind of the thinker4  ,it is an     
illusion of the senses4  ,the duty of   
the philosopher is to overcome the      
illusion by turning away from the world 
of sense and fixing his mind on true    
being2 by ascesis and contemplation he  
endeavours to attain the ecstatic state1
 in which the illusion of the world's   
reality disappears1 and the potential   
identity of man with the universal      
spirit becomes actualised in experience4
  ,similarly1 for the monophysite1 the  

humanity of ,christ was a creation of   
the senses4  ,christ's body was a       
phantom1 and ,his human mind simply an  
aspect of ,him4  ,they were impressions 
left on the minds of ,his               
contemporaries4  ,having no substantive 
existence1 no reality in fact1 they were
 to be ignored in ,christological dogma4
  ,they were not to be considered as    
part of the true ,christ2 they were not 
to be worshipped4  ,no spiritual value  
attached to them4  ,they were hindrances
 rather than helps to the religion that 
aimed at entire abandonment of self and 
absorption in the divine4    ,,the      
,,third ,,solution ,,of ,,the ,,cosmic  
,,problem--,,identity ,,in ,,difference 
,we come now to the third and last      
solution of the cosmic problem4  ,as we 
develop it1 we shall endeavour to show  
that it supplies that metaphysical idea 
which forms the basis of catholic       
,christology4  ,the two previous        
solutions failed4  ,they do not satisfy 
the philosopher and they mislead the    

theologian4  ,the one separates ,god    
from the world2 the other merges them4  
,thus both1 in effect1 abandon the      
original enterprise4  ,they destroy the 
relation instead of expressing it4  ,the
 concepts both of co-existence and of   
identity have proved fruitless in the   
speculative problem1 and in ,christology
 have given rise to heresy4 ,the third  
school of thought takes as its starting 
point neither ,god1 nor the world1 nor  
the two as co-existing1 but the relation
 of the two4 ,it makes that relation    
such that the terms related are         
preserved in the relation4  ,neither    
identity nor difference is the full     
truth1 but identity in and through      
difference4  ,god is not the world1 nor 
is the world ,god4  ,god is1 and the    
world is4  ,each are facts4  ,in their  
separateness they are not true facts4   
,it is only as we conceive the two in   
their oneness1 a supra-numerical        
oneness1 that we can give their full    
value to each4  ,the world is ,god's    

world2 therefore it has being and value4
  ,the cosmic relation then is expressed
 not by an and1 nor by an is1 but by an 
of4  ,the ,god of the world is the key  
concept that unlocks the doors of the   
palace of truth4  ,it was in the        
prominence given to this concept that   
,aristotle's system made a great advance
 on that of his predecessor4  ,plato had
 established a world of ideas with the  
idea of the ,good as its centre1 but he 
left it unrelated to the world of       
experience4  ,aristotle insisted on     
relating the ideal and the real4  ,his  
concept of relation was that of form and
 matter4  ,the world apart from ,god is 
matter apart from form4 ,it has only    
potential reality4  ,when it becomes    
united to its form1 it becomes actual4  
,its form makes it a fact--what it has  
in it to be4 ,aristotle conceives       
different grades of being4  ,unformed   
matter is the lowest of these grades1   
and ,god the highest4  ,each grade      
supplies the matter of which the next   

highest grade is the form4  ,ascending  
the scale of being at last we reach pure
 form4  ,thus the ladder of development 
is constructed by which the world rises 
to its realisation in ,god4  ,aristotle 
gave to humanity the conception of a    
,god who transcends the world1 and yet  
is immanent in it1 as form is in matter4
 ,thus ,greek philosophy in ,aristotle  
attained that spiritual monotheism which
 supplied the foundation for the edifice
 of ,christian doctrine4  ,the effect of
 ,aristotle's teaching was felt by all  
the ecclesiastical parties in the fifth 
century4  ,as we shall see in a later   
chapter1 some of the subsidiary elements
 of his philosophy are reflected in     
monophysitism4  ,the dominant ideas1    
however1 of the system1 the conception  
of ,god and the world and the relation  
between them1 were taken over by the    
catholic theologians1 and incorporated  
into their ,christology4  ,we need not  
here inquire whether ,aristotle's       
influence was direct or indirect4  ,no  

doubt many of the theologians who       
constructed ,christian doctrine had read
 his works4  ,whether that is so or not1
 they must have unconsciously           
assimilated his central doctrine4 ,it   
was common property4  ,the determination
 to keep ,god a reality and the world a 
reality and yet relate the two became   
the controlling motive of their         
thinking4  ,aristotle in theory and     
application of theory has always a      
feeling for fact4  ,the individual thing
 and the world of individual things are1
 for him1 never negligible4  ,realised  
matter1 life1 the human spirit1 human   
nature1 are actualities and have their  
value as such4  ,they are not all on the
 same level of being2 they do not occupy
 the same rank2 and it is the           
philosopher's business to determine     
their respective positions in the scale 
of being and value4  ,but he cannot have
 his head in the clouds of              
contemplation1 unless he have his feet  
on the earth of fact4    ,,the ,,essence

 ,,of ,,catholic ,,christology          
,catholic ,christology has caught the   
spirit of ,aristotle's teaching4  ,it is
 not primarily speculative4  ,it is in  
close touch with fact4  ,it is the      
outcome of a deep-felt want4            
,redemption is the first demand of      
religious experience2 so it is the      
motive and theme of all ,christology4   
,the soul views itself as a member of a 
world of souls estranged from ,god1 and 
for its own peace and welfare seeks to  
effect a union between ,god and the     
world4  ,such a union1 to be effective1 
must preserve the being and value of the
 world4  ,if there were no world or only
 a valueless world1 there would be      
nothing to redeem1 or nothing worth     
redeeming4  ,seeking that union in      
personality1 and in the most marvellous 
personality of history1 the orthodox    
theologians by a true instinct ascribed 
to ,him both divine and human natures4  
,he is the cosmic unity of opposites4   
,his person is the cosmic relation4  ,in

 that person the lower term of the      
relation has true being and full value4 
,thus the ,church steered a middle      
course between the ,scylla of           
co-existence and the ,charybdis of      
identity4  ,these a priori deductions as
 to the being of ,christ were verified  
by a reference to fact4  ,the life-story
 of the historic ,christ comprises two  
distinct groups of experience4  ,there  
are thoughts1 deeds1 and words          
attributed to ,him that only ,god could 
have thought1 done1 and said4  ,there   
are as well thoughts1 deeds and words of
 ,his that only a man could have        
thought1 done and said4  ,hence the     
diphysite doctrine was verified a       
posteriori4  ,again1 in both groups of  
experience there is a never-failing     
connecting link4  ,there is a unity     
lying deeper in ,his consciousness than 
the duality4  ,christ1 the ,agent1 is   
the same in both parts4  ,whether as    
,god or man1 ,he is never out of        
character4 ,hence the unity of the      

person also was established a           
posteriori4 ,thus1 to the orthodox      
,christologians1 the expectation that   
the human ,ideal would be a unity1      
comprising divinity and humanity1 was   
justified by historical fact4  ,they    
found a further verification on applying
 the test of practice4 ,orthodox        
,christology satisfies the requirements 
of the soul4  ,man's chief spiritual    
need is access to ,god through a daysman
 that might lay his hand upon both4  ,an
 exemplar1 even though perfect1 is not  
adequate to his need4  ,the unio mystica
 can only be experienced by the leisured
 few4  ,man demands a religion of       
redemption1 a redemption that allows    
value to labour1 to endeavour1 to human 
thought1 that recognises the reality of 
pain and sorrow and sin1 a redemption   
that redeems humanity in all its phases 
and in the wealth of its experiences4   
,an ,agent that has not shared to the   
full those experiences is useless for   
the purpose4  ,redemption must be the   

work of ,one who knows ,god and knows   
man1 of ,one who has the touch of       
sympathy2 for to such a touch alone can 
humanity respond4  ,the ,christology    
that makes ,christ ,jesus consubstantial
 with ,god and with man satisfies man's 
deep-felt need4    ,,summary ,,of ,,the 
,,chapter  ,we have taken a triad of    
ontologies and a triad of               
,christological systems1 placed them    
side by side1 and examined them4  ,the  
result of that examination is a triple  
correspondence4  ,the metaphysical      
principle is found in each case worked  
out in a corresponding ,christology4    
,the comparison is of general interest4 
,it reveals ,christology as intimately  
connected with the workings of          
intellect1 as in the main stream of the 
current of human thought1 as capable of 
philosophic treatment4  ,further than   
that1 the comparison is vital to the    
main argument of this essay4  ,it       
provides the clue to the heart of our   
subject4  ,the scientist1 who wishes to 

understand a botanical specimen1 pays as
 much attention to what is in the ground
 as to what is above ground4  ,the seed 
and roots are as full of scientific     
interest as are stem1 leaf and flower4  
,similarly1 to understand the           
monophysite heresy1 to be able to detect
 it and expose it1 we must take it in   
the germ4  ,we may push the illustration
 further4  ,the properties of a         
botanical specimen are best studied in  
connection with organisms of allied     
species4  ,we cannot isolate unless we  
compare4  ,by comparison the essential  
features1 functions and properties of   
the specimen under examination are      
elucidated4  ,it is by isolating the    
three germinal ideas of these three     
,christological systems and comparing   
them1 that a full comprehension of      
monophysitism in all its stages1 from   
seed to flower1 is reached4  ,we have   
used this method1 and have found that   
the roots of the heresy lie in spiritual
 monism4  ,in subsequent chapters we    

shall analyse its origins as a          
historical system1 its specific tenets  
and its practical consequences4  ,it    
will then be seen that the spirit of    
monism pervades the whole system4       
,,chapter ,,ii  ,,the ,,origins ,,of    
,,monophysitism  ,the monophysitism of  
the fifth century had its roots in the  
past as well as in the a priori4  ,in   
the previous chapter we treated it as a 
phase of philosophic thought and        
reviewed the metaphysic on which the    
heresy rests4  ,in the present chapter  
its relations as a historical system of 
religious thought are to be exhibited4  
,as such1 it owes much to outside       
influences4  ,much in the monophysite   
mode of thought and many of its specific
 doctrines can be traced either to other
 ecclesiastical heresies or to pagan    
philosophies4  ,the fact of this double 
derivation deserves to be emphasised4   
,it refutes the charge of inquisitorial 
bigotry1 so frequently levelled against 
the theologians of the early centuries4 

,the non-,christian affinities of the   
heresy account for the bitterness of the
 controversy to which it gave rise1 and1
 in large measure1 excuse the           
intolerance shown by both parties4      
,heresies were not domestic quarrels4   
,contemporaries viewed them as involving
 a life and death struggle between      
believers and unbelievers4 ,christianity
 can afford to be tolerant to-day4  ,it 
has an assured position4  ,its tenets   
are defined4  ,christians can almost    
always distinguish at a glance errors   
that threaten the essentials of the     
,faith from those that do not4  ,in the 
fourth and fifth centuries the case was 
otherwise4  ,christianity was then one  
among many conflicting systems of       
religion4  ,its intellectual bases were 
as yet only imperfectly thought out4    
,any doctrinal error seemed capable of  
poisoning the whole body of belief4     
,heresy1 so the orthodox held1 was of   
the devil4  ,no charitable view of it   
was allowable4  ,that uncompromising    

attitude was1 to a large extent1        
justified because many articles of the  
heretical creeds were of purely pagan   
origin4  ,given similar conditions      
to-day1 our easy tolerance of opinion   
would disappear4  ,if ,islam1 for       
instance1 were to-day a serious menace  
to the ,faith1 ,christians would        
automatically stiffen their attitude    
towards monophysite doctrines4          
,toleration of the false ,christology   
would1 under those circumstances1 be    
treason to the true4  ,the ,church of   
the fifth century was menaced from many 
sides4  ,monophysitism was the foe at   
her gates4  ,that heresy was not a      
variety of ,christianity4  ,it was a    
semi-pagan theosophy1 a product of      
,greek and oriental1 as well as of      
purely ,christian speculation2 therefore
 it was anathema to the orthodox4       
,,the ,,elemental ,,forms ,,of          
,,christological ,,error--,,docetism    
,,and ,,ebionitism  ,we propose to begin
 the study of the antecedents of        

monophysitism by examining those of a   
,christian or semi-,christian character4
  ,for that purpose it will be necessary
 to give a brief sketch of the early    
heresies in so far as they bear on the  
,christological problem4  ,the two      
primitive forms of doctrinal error1 to  
which the ,church1 even in apostolic    
days1 was exposed1 were docetism and    
ebionitism4  ,these are the elemental   
heresies4  ,all the later               
,christological heresies are refinements
 of one or other of these two4  ,they   
constitute the extremes of              
,christological thought3 between them   
runs the via media of orthodoxy4  ,each 
of the two sees but one aspect of the   
two-fold life of ,christ4  ,docetism    
lays an exclusive emphasis on ,his real 
divinity1 ebionitism on ,his real       
humanity4  ,each mistakes a half truth  
for a whole truth4  ,the docetists      
denied that ,jesus ,christ had come in  
the flesh4  ,his body1 they taught1 was 
an apparition4  ,he ate and drank1 but  

the physical frame received no          
sustenance4  ,he appeared to suffer1 but
 felt no pain4  ,the reality behind the 
semblance was the divine spirit-being1  
who conjured up the illusion in order to
 elevate the thoughts of mankind4  ,this
 docetic theory commended itself to many
 of the ,greek ,christians4  ,they were 
familiar with the notion of the gods    
coming down to them in the likeness of  
men4  ,greek mythology abounds in       
instances of docetic incarnations4  ,the
 gods of the popular religion constantly
 assumed visible form during their      
temporary manifestations4  ,the         
ebionites threatened the ,faith from the
 opposite quarter4  ,they taught that   
,christ was real man and only man4      
,according to them1 the whole value of  
,his life and work lay in ,his moral    
teaching and ,his noble example2 there  
is no mystery1 no contact of divine and 
human in ,christ2 what ,he attained1 we 
all may attain4  ,the ebionites were    
recruited from the ,jewish element in   

the ,church4  ,the rigid monotheism of  
the ,jews made it hard for them to      
conceive an intermediary between ,god   
and man2 they were naturally disposed to
 embrace a humanistic explanation of    
,christ4  ,docetism was elaborated by   
,valentinus1 ,manes and other gnostics  
and adopted into their systems1 while   
ebionitism provided the basis for the   
,christologies of ,paul of ,samosata1 of
 the ,photinians and ,adoptionists4 ,in 
contact with these heresies orthodox    
beliefs1 originally fluid1 gradually    
hardened4  ,the dogma ,christus deus et 
homo had from the beginning been held in
 the ,church4  ,its full implications   
were not realised and formulated until  
the conflict with error came4  ,the     
controversies of the third and fourth   
centuries threw into bold relief the    
unity of the person and the perfection  
of the divinity and of the humanity4    
,,the ,,problem ,,of ,,the ,,hypostatic 
,,union  ,the manner of the hypostatic  
union then became an urgent problem4    

,the ,church of the fifth century was   
called upon to attempt a solution4  ,any
 reading of the ,gospels compelled the  
recognition of divine and human elements
 in ,christ2 but speculative theology   
found it difficult to reconcile that    
fact with the equally important fact of 
the unity of person4  ,the theologians  
of the previous century had bequeathed  
little or no guidance4  ,the            
fifth-century ,christologians were      
pioneers in an unmapped region4         
,athanasius' great treatises on the     
incarnation are hardly more than        
eloquent defences of the true deity and 
true humanity of ,christ4  ,they contain
 little or no constructive ,christology4
  ,their theme is1 auts ennthrpsen1 hna 
hmeis thepoithmen4  ,he maintains the   
fact1 but does not deal with the how4   
,he uses the phrase natural union 7hnsis
 physik71 but does not attempt to define
 the mode of that union4                
,,apollinarianism  ,apollinaris was1 as 
far as we know1 the first theologian to 

approach this subject4  ,we may note in 
passing that1 though he was bishop of   
,laodicea in ,syria1 ,alexandria was his
 native place4  ,his father was an      
,alexandrian1 and he himself had been a 
friend of ,athanasius4  ,the fact of his
 connection with ,alexandria deserves   
mention1 because his doctrine reflects  
the ideas of the ,alexandrian school of 
thought1 not those of the ,syrian4      
,apollinaris set himself to attack the  
heretical view that there were two      
,sons--one before all time1 the divine  
,logos1 and one after the incarnation1  
,jesus ,christ4  ,in doing so he felt   
constrained to formulate a theory of the
 union of natures4  ,he started from the
 ,platonic division of human nature into
 three parts1 rational soul1 animal     
soul1 and body4  ,he argued that in the 
statement the ,logos became flesh1 flesh
 must mean animal soul and body4  ,he   
urged in proof that it would be absurd  
to suppose the ,logos conditioned by    
human reason2 that rational soul was the

 seat of personality1 and that if it    
were associated with the ,logos1 it     
would be impossible to avoid recognising
 two ,sons4  ,he expressly asserted that
 the humanity of ,christ was incomplete1
 contending that this very defect in the
 human nature made possible the unity of
 ,his person4  ,according to            
,apollinaris1 then1 the union was a     
composition4  ,the ,logos superseded the
 human reason1 and was thus united to   
body and animal soul4  ,apollinarianism 
was a form of docetism4  ,in ascribing  
imperfection to the human nature of     
,christ it eo ipso denied its reality4  
,apollinaris1 in fact1 said of ,christ's
 reason what the early docetists said of
 ,his body4  ,the system is more        
ingenious than convincing4  ,it is      
highly artificial4  ,it provides no     
intellectual basis for a living faith in
 an incarnate ,christ4  ,the theory1    
however1 was very influential in its    
day1 and was intimately connected with  
the rise of monophysitism4  ,eutyches1  

the father of the monophysites1 was     
condemned by a local synod at           
,constantinople in ,a4,d4 #ddh on the   
ground that he was affected by the      
heresy of ,valentinus and               
,apollinaris4#a ,harnack goes so far as 
to say that the whole position of the   
later monophysites1 thought out to all  
its conceivable conclusions1 is already 
to be found in ,apollinaris4            
,apollinarianism was condemned at the   
second general council1 and there the   
,church made her first declaration1 a   
negative one1 on the subject of the     
hypostatic union4 ,in conflict with the 
heresies which arose in the next two    
generations1 she evolved a positive     
statement of the truth4    ,,the        
,,nestorian ,,reaction  ,opposition to  
,apollinarianism gave rise to the       
,nestorian heresy4  ,the original       
ebionitism had died away1 but its spirit
 and central doctrine reappeared in     
,nestorianism4  ,nestorianism might be  
described as ebionitism conforming to   

the creeds of ,nicaea and               
,constantinople4  ,the leaders of the   
opposition to the ,apollinarists of the 
fifth century were their own ,syrian    
countrymen whose headquarters was at    
,antioch4 ,the ,antiochians differed    
from the ,apollinarians in the          
starting-point of their ,christology and
 in the controlling motive of their     
thought4 ,while ,apollinaris had        
constructed his ,christology on the     
basis of the doctrine of the ,trinity1  
the ,antiochians started from the       
formula perfect alike in deity and      
humanity4  ,the reasonings of           
,apollinaris were governed by the       
thought of redemption4  ,the fundamental
 question of religion for him was1 ,how 
can the closest union between divine and
 human be secured8  ,the tendency of the
 ,antiochians1 on the other hand1 was to
 neglect the interests of ,soteriology  
and to emphasize the ethical aspect of  
,christ's life and teaching4  ,they put 
in the background the idea of the       

all-creating1 all-sustaining ,logos1 who
 took man's nature upon ,him and in ,his
 person deified humanity4  ,their       
thought centred on the historic ,christ1
 the ,christ of the evangelists4 ,they  
did not revert to crude ebionitism1 but 
they explained the ,nicene creed from an
 ebionitic stand-point4  ,they          
maintained as against the ,apollinarians
 the completeness of ,christ's human    
nature2 with equal vigour they          
maintained the essential deity of the   
,logos4  ,the poverty 7ebionitism7 of   
their doctrines consisted in their      
paltry view of the hypostatic union4    
,the union1 according to the            
,nestorians1 was subsequent to the      
conception of ,jesus4  ,it was not a    
personal1 but a moral union4  ,it was a 
conjunction of two co-ordinate entities4
  ,they taught that the more the man    
,jesus acted in accordance with the     
divine promptings1 the closer became his
 union with the ,logos4  ,that is to    
say1 the union was relative not         

absolute4  ,thus the union between      
divine and human in ,christ differed    
only in degree from the union of the    
same elements in any good man4  ,the    
unity of the ,son of ,god and the ,son  
of ,mary consisted solely in the        
identity of name1 honour and worship4   
,,cyril ,,of ,,alexandria  ,cyril1      
,bishop of ,alexandria1 led the         
opposition to ,nestorius4  ,he declared 
that the moment of conception was the   
moment of the union1 and that the notion
 of incarnation involved much more than 
an association of natures4  ,he         
maintained that the incarnation was a   
hypostatic union 7hnsis physik74  ,he   
endeavoured to guard against an         
,apollinarian interpretation of his     
teaching2 but in this attempt he was not
 altogether successful4  ,he asserted   
the perfection of ,christ's humanity and
 the distinction between the two        
natures4  ,the perfection1 however1 is  
compromised1 and the distinction        
rendered purely ideal by his further    

statement that there were two natures   
before1 but only one after the union4   
,he cited in proof the words of         
,athanasius1 one incarnate nature of    
,god the ,word4  ,cyril prevailed4      
,nestorius was condemned and the        
,antiochian school discredited4         
,cyril's victory1 however1 was of       
doubtful value to orthodoxy4  ,his      
ardent but unbalanced utterances        
bequeathed to the ,church a legacy of   
strife4  ,his writings1 particularly the
 earlier ones1 furnished the            
monophysites with an armoury of weapons4
  ,his teaching could not with justice  
be styled docetic or ,apollinarian1 but 
its mystic tone was so pronounced that  
it proved a propaedeutic for            
monophysitism4  ,the shibboleth of      
orthodoxy1 quoted above1 one incarnate  
nature of ,god the ,word1 passed rapidly
 into the watchword of heresy4          
,athanasius had used the word nature in 
a broad sense4  ,the monophysites       
narrowed it down to its later technical 

meaning4  ,thus they exalted ,christ    
into a region beyond the ken of mortal  
man4  ,the incarnation became a mystery 
pure and simple1 unintelligible1 calling
 for blind acceptance4  ,the            
monophysites1 following ,cyril1         
heightened the mystery1 but1 in doing   
so1 they eliminated the reality and the 
human appeal of the incarnate life4     
,they soon began to argue that1 since   
,christ is monophysite1 the properties  
of deity and humanity in ,him are       
interchangeable2 that therefore1 while  
yet a ,babe in the manger1 ,he ruled the
 world with the omniscience and         
omnipresence of the ,logos2 that while  
,he hanged upon the ,cross1 ,his mighty 
power sustained and ordered the         
universe4  ,the monophysites professed  
great jealousy for the honour due to the
 ,redeemer4  ,but the ascription of such
 attributes to ,jesus ,christ detracts  
from ,his honour4  ,if the nature that  
suffered on the ,cross be not distinct  
from the nature that cannot suffer1 then

 the ,crucifixion was a sham4           
,monophysitism is docetism elaborated4  
,it abandons the ,christ of history4    
,it rules out ,his prokop4  ,it ignores 
a fact1 vital to ,christology1 namely   
the knsis or divine self-limitation4    
,thus it throws a veil of unreality over
 those facts on which the ,christian    
,faith is built4    ,,monophysitism ,a  
,,product ,,of ,,positive ,,and         
,,negative ,,currents ,,of ,,religious  
,,thought  ,the foregoing sketch of the 
early ,christological heresies exhibits 
monophysitism as a product of two       
opposite intellectual currents4  ,a     
man's convictions are settled for him   
partly by acceptance1 partly by         
rejection of what tradition offers or   
his mind evolves4  ,the mass mind works 
similarly4  ,it accepts and rejects1    
approves and disallows4  ,the           
stabilisation of a body of mass         
opinions1 such as a heresy1 is thus     
determined by opposite forces4  ,it was 
so with monophysitism4  ,its ,christian 

antecedents comprised positive and      
negative currents4  ,the positive       
current was docetism1 the negative      
ebionitism4  ,docetism1 originating in  
apostolic times1 passed through many    
phases1 to provide1 at the end of the   
fourth century1 in its most refined     
form1 ,apollinarianism1 the immediate   
positive cause of monophysitism4        
,ebionitism1 related to docetism as     
realism to idealism1 possessed equal    
vitality and equal adaptability4  ,it   
showed itself in various humanistic     
interpretations of ,christ4  ,of these  
the most elaborate was ,nestorianism1   
which exerted the most insistent and    
immediate negative influence on the     
early growth of monophysitism4          
,,monophysitism ,,and ,,non-,,christian 
,,thought  ,we leave here the subject of
 the influence of other heresies on     
monophysitism1 and proceed to exhibit   
its affinities with non-,christian      
thought4  ,at ,alexandria1 the home of  
the heresy1 two systems of philosophy1  

the ,aristotelian and the               
,neo-,platonist1 were strongly          
represented4  ,both of these            
philosophies exercised a profound       
influence upon the origins and upon the 
later developments of monophysite       
doctrine4  ,we propose to take1 first1  
the ,aristotelian1 and then the         
,neo-,platonist philosophy1 elucidating 
those leading ideas in each on which the
 monophysite thinker would naturally    
fasten1 as lending intellectual support 
to his religious views4    ,,the        
,,aristotelian ,,logic  ,aristotle was  
held in high estimation by the          
monophysite leaders1 particularly in the
 sixth and seventh centuries4  ,his     
works were translated into ,syriac in   
the ,jacobite schools4  ,the ,west owes 
much to these translations4  ,for it was
 largely by this agency that his        
metaphysic reached the ,arabs1 who      
transmitted it to the ,west in the      
,middle ,ages4  ,the ,aristotelian logic
 was widely known among the             

monophysites4  ,it seems to have formed 
part of their educational curriculum4   
,taken apart from the rest of the       
system1 the logic produces a type of    
mind that revels in subtle              
argumentation4  ,it exalts the form of  
thought at the expense of the matter4   
,it had this effect on the monophysite  
theologians4  ,they were trained        
dialecticians4  ,they were noted for    
their controversial powers1 for their   
constant appeal to definition1 for the  
mechanical precision of their arguments4
  ,these mental qualities1 excellent in 
themselves1 do not conduce to sound     
theology4 ,formal logic effects clarity 
of thought often at the expense of      
depth4 ,it treats thoughts as things4   
,procedure1 that is proper in the sphere
 of logic1 is out of place in psychology
 and theology4  ,concepts such as person
 and nature must be kept fluid1 if they 
are not to mislead4  ,if they are made  
into hard and fast ideas1 into sharply  
defined abstractions1 they will be taken

 to represent discrete psychic entities1
 external to one another as numbers are4
  ,the elusive1 ,protean character of   
the inter-penetrating realities behind  
them will be lost to view4  ,the most   
signal defect of monophysite method is  
its unquestioning submission to the     
,aristotelian law of contradiction4     
,the intellectual training that makes   
men acute logicians disqualifies them   
for dealing with the living subject4    
,the monophysite ,christologians were   
subtle dialecticians1 but the psychology
 of ,christ's being lay outside their   
competence4    ,,aristotle',s           
,,criticism ,,of ,,dualism--,a ,,weapon 
,,in ,,the ,,hands ,,of ,,the           
,,monophysites  ,leaving the formal     
element in ,aristotle's system1 we come 
to its material content4  ,some of the  
prominent ideas of the ,aristotelian    
cosmology and psychology reappear in the
 heresy we are studying4  ,we shall take
 first the rejection of the ,platonic   
dualism4  ,aristotle's repeated         

criticism of his master's theory of     
ideas is not merely destructive4  ,it   
formed the starting-point for his own   
metaphysic4  ,the ideas1 he says1 simply
 duplicate the world of existent things4
  ,they do not create things or move    
them2 they do not explain genesis or    
process2 they merely co-exist with the  
ideates4  ,the participation which      
,plato's later theory postulated is     
inadequate4  ,a more intimate relation  
is required4  ,the theory of ideas      
confronts ,god with a world1 and leaves 
the relation between them unformulated  
and inexplicable4  ,this criticism is of
 first importance for theology4  ,faith 
as well as reason demands a real        
relation between idea and ideate4  ,the 
,christian student in the fifth century1
 familiar with ,aristotle's criticism of
 ,plato1 would inevitably apply it in   
,christology4  ,any theory of redemption
 that ascribed duality to the ,redeemer 
would seem to him to be open to the     
objections that ,aristotle had urged    

against the theory of ideas4  ,the      
,nestorian formula1 in effect1          
juxtaposed the ideal ,christ and the    
real ,jesus1 and left the two unrelated4
  ,this was ,platonism in ,christology4 
,aristotle's attack on ,plato's system  
provided a radical criticism of         
,nestorianism4  ,the monophysite        
theologians were blind to the difference
 between the ,nestorian position and    
that of the orthodox4  ,they saw that   
,aristotle had placed a powerful weapon 
in their hands1 and they used it        
indifferently against both opposing     
parties4    ,,aristotle',s ,,psychology 
,we turn now to ,aristotle's psychology4
  ,we must give a brief sketch of it in 
order to establish the fact that the    
,aristotelian and the monophysite       
science of the soul labour under the    
same defect4  ,it is a radical defect1  
namely1 the almost complete absence of  
the conception of personality4  ,the    
principle of ,aristotle's psychology1   
like that of his metaphysic1 is the     

concept of form and matter4  ,the soul  
of man comes under the general          
ontological law4  ,all existence is     
divisible into grades1 the lower grade  
being the matter whose form is          
constituted by the next highest grade4  
,thus there is a graduated scale of     
being1 starting from pure matter and    
rising to pure form4  ,the inorganic is 
matter for the vegetable kingdom1 the   
vegetable kingdom for the animal        
kingdom2 the nutritive process is       
material for the sensitive1 and the     
sensitive for the cognitive4  ,man is an
 epitome of these processes4 ,the       
various parts of his nature are arranged
 in an ascending scale2 form is the only
 cohesive force4  ,the animal soul is   
the form of the body1 born with it1     
growing with it1 dying with it2 the two 
are one in the closest union            
conceivable4  ,besides the soul of the  
body1 there is1 says ,aristotle1 a soul 
of the soul4  ,this is reason1          
essentially different from animal and   

sensitive soul4  ,it is not connected   
with organic function4  ,it is pure     
intellectual principle4  ,it is         
immaterial1 immortal1 the divine element
 in man4  ,this reason is not a bare    
unity4  ,as it appears in human         
experience1 it is not full-grown4       
,potentially it contains all the        
categories1 but the potentiality must be
 actualised4  ,consequently reason      
subdivides into active and passive      
intellect4  ,the action of the former on
 the latter1 and the response of the    
latter to the former1 constitute the    
development of the mind1 the education  
of the truth that is potentially present
 from the beginning4  ,this hierarchy of
 immaterial entities contains nothing   
corresponding to our idea of            
personality4  ,there is in it no        
principle that is both individual and   
immortal4  ,aristotle allows immortality
 only to the universal reason4  ,the    
psychic elements are condemned to perish
 with the body4  ,there is no hope for  

the parts of the soul which are most    
intimately connected with the           
individual's experience4  ,monophysite  
,christology shares this fundamental    
defect4  ,the monophysite thinker       
attempted to express the union of two   
natures within one experience4  ,but his
 psychology1 not containing the notion  
of personality1 could furnish no        
principle of synthesis4  ,an agent in   
the background of life1 to combine the  
multiplicity of experience1 is a sine   
qua non of a sound ,christology4        
,personality was to the monophysites a  
terra incognita2 and it was in large    
measure their devotion to ,aristotle's  
system that made them deaf to the       
teaching of the catholic church4        
,,intellectualism ,,and ,,mysticism     
,,complementary ,,systems  ,after this  
sketch of the ,aristotelian features    
recognisable in monophysitism1 we turn  
to the other great pagan philosophy that
 assisted in the shaping of the heresy4 
,intellectualism and mysticism are      

closely allied2 the two are             
complementary2 they are as mutually     
dependent as are head and heart4  ,it is
 not then surprising that monophysitism 
should possess the characteristics of   
both these schools of thought4  ,the    
intellectualism of the heresy was       
largely due1 as we have shown1 to the   
,aristotelian logic and metaphysic2 its 
mystic elements derive1 as we proceed to
 indicate1 from ,neo-,platonism and     
kindred theosophies4  ,alexandria had   
been for centuries the home of the      
mystics4  ,the geographical position1 as
 well as the political circumstances of 
its foundation1 destined that city to be
 the meeting-place of ,west and ,east4  
,there the wisdom of the ,orient met and
 fought and fused with that of the      
,occident4  ,there ,philo taught1 and   
bequeathed to the ,neo-,platonists much 
of his ,pythagorean system4  ,there     
flourished for a while and died         
fantastic eclectic creeds1 pagan        
theosophies masquerading as             

,christianity4  ,gnosticism was a       
typical product of the city4            
,valentinus and ,basilides and the other
 gnostics made in that cosmopolitan     
atmosphere their attempts to reconcile  
,christianity with ,greek and oriental  
thought4  ,there ,ammonius ,saccas1     
after his lapse from the ,christian     
faith1 taught and laid the foundation of
 ,neo-,platonism4  ,plotinus was the    
greatest of his disciples1 and1 though  
he taught at ,rome for most of his life1
 it was in the spirit of ,alexandria    
that he wrought his absolute philosophy1
 the full-orbed splendour of the setting
 sun of ,greek thought4  ,neo-,platonism
 did not die with ,plotinus4  ,in the   
middle of the fifth century1 when       
monophysitism was at its zenith1        
,proclus was fashioning an intellectual 
machinery to express the ,plotinian     
system4  ,the story of ,hypatia         
evidences the dominant position of      
,neo-,platonism in ,alexandrian culture4
  ,the violence of ,cyril's measures    

against her shows what a menace to the  
,church that philosophy was4  ,cyril was
 not a monophysite1 but much that he    
said and did promoted their cause4      
,dioscurus1 his nephew and successor in 
the see of ,alexandria1 championed      
monophysitism at the council of         
,chalcedon4  ,in later generations      
,alexandria always offered an asylum to 
exiled monophysite leaders4  ,these     
facts render it impossible to regard the
 connection between ,alexandria and     
monophysitism as fortuitous4  ,they     
further suggest that ,neo-,platonism was
 the connecting link4  ,such in fact it 
was4 ,monophysitism1 we might almost    
say1 was ,neo-,platonism in ,christian  
dress4  ,the ethos of the two systems is
 the same1 and the doctrinal resemblance
 is marked4  ,it was natural that the   
home of pagan mysticism should cradle   
the kindred system of heretical         
,christian mysticism4                   
,,neo-,,platonist ,,ontology  ,the      
representative figure amongst the       

,neo-,platonists is ,plotinus4  ,his    
comprehensive mind gathered up the main 
threads of ,alexandrian thought1 and    
wove them into the fabric of a vast     
speculative system4  ,the system is as  
much a religion as a philosophy4  ,it is
 the triumph of uncompromising monism4  
,the last traces of dualism have been   
eradicated4  ,god1 for ,plotinus1 is    
true being and the only being4  ,he is  
all and in all4  ,god is an impersonal  
,trinity1 comprising the ,one1 the      
cosmic reason and the cosmic soul4  ,the
 ,one is primal1 ineffable1 behind and  
beyond all human experience4  ,all we   
know of ,him is that ,he is the source  
and union of reason and soul4  ,creation
 is effected by a continuous series of  
emanations from ,god4  ,emanation is not
 an arbitrary act of divine will2 it is 
a necessary consequence of the nature of
 the ,one4  ,god must negate ,himself1  
and the process is creation4  ,the      
further the process of negation is      
carried1 the less reality does the      

created object possess4  ,last in the   
scale comes matter1 which has no        
self-subsistence1 but is the absolute   
self-negation of ,god4  ,we referred in 
the last chapter to ,plotinus' favourite
 illustration4  ,we may be allowed1     
perhaps1 to repeat it here4 ,as light1  
he says1 issues from the sun and grows  
gradually dimmer1 until it passes by    
imperceptible degrees into the dark1 so 
reason emanates from ,god and1 passing  
through the phases of nature1 loses its 
essence gradually in its procession1    
until finally it is derationalised and  
becomes its opposite4                   
,,neo-,,platonist ,,psychology  ,human  
souls are at an intermediate stage of   
this cosmic process4  ,like the ray of  
light which touches both sun and earth1 
they have contact with ,god and with    
matter4  ,they stand midway in creation4
  ,they are attracted upwards and       
downwards4  ,reason draws them to ,god2 
sense chains them to earth4  ,their     
position decides their duty4  7,here the

 philosophy becomes a religion74  ,the  
duty of man is to break the sensuous    
chains and set the soul free to return  
to its home in ,god4 ,this return of the
 soul to ,god is attained by the path of
 knowledge4 ,the knowledge that frees is
 not speculative2 for such enhances     
self-consciousness4  ,it is immediate   
consciousness indistinguishable from    
unconsciousness4  ,it is intuitive      
knowledge4  ,it is vision in which the  
seer loses himself1 and what sees is the
 same as what is seen4  ,it is the      
absorption of the soul in the world     
reason1 and so with ,god4  ,the         
,neo-,platonist took practical steps to 
attain this mystic state4  ,he submitted
 to rule and discipline4  ,by           
mortification of the flesh he           
endeavoured to weaken sensuous desire4  
,the arts of theurgy were employed to   
wean the mind from sensuous knowledge1  
and to fix aspiration on unseen         
realities4  ,contemplation and          
self-hypnotism were widely practised4   

,in ecstasy the mystic found a foretaste
 of that blissful loss of being1 which  
is the goal and crown of philosophic    
thought4    ,,monophysitism ,,and       
,,neo-,,platonism  ,when we compare     
monophysitism with the system of        
,plotinus1 several points of resemblance
 appear4  ,there is first the impersonal
 character of the deity4  ,monophysitism
 was not a ,trinitarian heresy1 and the 
,catholic doctrine of the three persons 
in the godhead was the official creed of
 the heretical church4  ,but their      
theologians refrained from laying       
emphasis upon the distinct personalities
 of ,father1 ,son and ,holy ,ghost4     
,their sympathies were ,sabellian to the
 core1 and ,sabellian heresies were     
constantly recurring within their       
communion4  ,the impersonal ,trinity1   
such as ,plotinus taught1 was thoroughly
 in keeping with their ,christology4    
,they lacked a clear conception of      
personality in the second ,person of the
 ,trinity4  ,it was inevitable that they

 should overlook the same element in the
 incarnate ,christ4  ,the ,neo-,platonic
 view of matter finds its counterpart in
 monophysite theory4  ,the monophysites1
 without formally denying its real      
existence1 nursed a ,manichean suspicion
 of it4  ,it was1 to them1 the seat of  
illusion2 it was an obstacle to spirit1 
the enemy of spiritual development4  ,if
 not unreal1 it was at any rate         
unworthy4  ,the association of ,christ  
with matter through ,his body and       
through ,his human nature was1 in their 
eyes1 a degradation of deity4  ,that    
,christ took matter up into ,his being  
as a permanent element1 that ,he        
dignified the body and glorified human  
faculties1 these facts seemed to the    
monophysite mind improbable1 and1 if    
true1 devoid of religious significance4 
,it came natural to him to explain      
,christ's body as a phantom4  ,he was   
prepared to regard the human nature as  
unsubstantial4 ,the mystic's view of    
matter1 of sense and human existence    

characterises the whole monophysite     
outlook4  ,in the spirit of ,plotinus   
the monophysites conceived the          
incarnation as the supreme example of   
the unio mystica4  ,the unio mystica was
 a state of rapture1 abnormal and       
temporary in earthly experience1 in     
which the identity of the mystic was    
actually merged in the cosmic reason4   
,the lower nature disappeared completely
 into the higher4  ,it was absorption4  
,this word absorption was in common use 
among the heretics4  ,it was a trite    
saying among the first generation of the
 monophysites that the human nature of  
,christ was absorbed in the divine1 as a
 drop of honey in the ocean4  ,they     
conceived ,his thought as lost in the   
universal reason1 ,his will as          
surrendered to the will of ,god1 ,his   
human affections as fused in the fire of
 divine feeling1 ,his body as a phantom4
  ,they could not admit that ,he lived  
the real life of a real man4  ,they     
could not see the value of such a life4 

,neo-,platonism had paralysed their     
optic nerve4  ,thinkers such as the     
,christologians of ,alexandria1 imbued  
with the spirit of ,neo-,platonism1 had 
no motive for preserving the distinct   
subsistence of ,christ's human nature4  
,it was their boast that their ,ideal   
had faced and overcome and trampled on  
the lower elements of ,his being4  ,he  
was a proof from fact that body and     
sense and all that is distinctively     
human could be sublimated into the      
universal substance1 which is the       
primary effluence of the ,plotinian     
,one4  ,in a word1 the incarnate ,christ
 was1 to them1 the personification of   
the ,neo-,platonist unio mystica4  ,we  
may conclude this comparison of         
monophysitism with ,neo-,platonism by   
pointing out that the two systems had a 
similar bearing on the conduct of life4 
,neo-,platonism was a religion4  ,its   
speculative aspect was subordinate to   
its practical4  ,a knowledge of the     
soul's position in creation and of its  

destiny laid the philosopher under      
strict obligation4  ,fasting and        
self-denial were essential preliminaries
 to the higher mystic practices4        
,ecstasy could not be reached until body
 and sense had been starved into        
complete submission4  ,monophysitism    
adopted this tradition1 and made ascesis
 the central duty of the ,christian     
life4  ,the monophysite church became   
celebrated for the length and rigidity  
of its fasts4  ,the monastic element    
dominated its communion4  ,indeed1 it is
 hardly too much to say that the        
monophysite movement1 on its external   
side1 was an attempt to capture the     
,church for monastic principles4  ,the  
heresy drew its inspiration from the    
cloister4  ,the ,christ of the          
monophysites had withdrawn from the     
market to the wilderness2 so ,his       
followers must needs go out of the world
 to follow in ,his steps4    #a         
,harnack1 ,history of ,dogma1 vol4 iv4  
chap4 ii4 p4 #afj4     ,,chapter ,,iii  

,,monophysite ,,doctrine  ,the          
distinctive doctrine of monophysitism1  
that from which the name of the heresy  
is taken1 is the assertion that there is
 but one nature1 the divine nature1 in  
,christ4  ,there existed some difference
 of opinion among the monophysites as to
 whether any degree of reality might be 
ascribed to the human nature4  ,some    
were prepared to allow it conceptual    
reality2 they would grant that ,christ  
had been diphysite momentarily1 that ,he
 was out of two natures4  ,but that     
admission is quite inadequate4  ,it     
amounts to no more than the paltry      
concession that ,christ's human nature  
before the incarnation is conceivable as
 a separate entity4  ,all monophysites  
united in condemning the diphysite      
doctrine that after the incarnation     
,christ was and is in two natures4 ,such
 a ,christ they would not worship4  ,it 
was the image with two faces that the   
,council of ,chalcedon had set up4#a    
,they adopted the ,athanasian phrase1   

,one incarnate nature of ,god the ,word1
 as their battle-cry4  ,monophysitism   
can make out a strong prima facie case4 
,it is attractive at first sight4  ,the 
heretical formula seems simpler and more
 natural than the catholic4  ,the unity 
of nature appears a corollary of the    
unity of person4  ,human personality is 
ordinarily assumed to be monophysite2 so
 it is natural to make the same         
assumption as to divine personality4    
,the simplicity of the doctrine is1     
however1 all on the surface4  ,it will  
not bear examination4  ,as a definition 
of ,christian faith it is useless4  ,it 
cannot account for the recorded facts of
 ,christ's life4  ,the facts of ,his    
body1 of ,his mind1 of ,his sufferings  
refuse to fit into it4  ,it affords no  
foundation for belief in ,his           
transcendent work4  ,no intelligible    
doctrine of redemption can be built upon
 it4  ,it contains no germ of hope for  
mankind4  ,therefore the ,church in the 
name of ,christ and on behalf of        

humanity rejected it4  ,although the    
heresy has been officially condemned1 it
 should none the less be studied4  ,it  
is improbable that any one in our time  
will defend the formula1 or openly      
profess the doctrines that follow from  
it4  ,but1 though not recognised as     
such1 it is an ever-present and instant 
menace to the ,faith4  ,monophysite     
tendencies are inherent in religious    
thought4  ,the metaphysical idea1 on    
which it rests1 still has a powerful    
hold over the human mind4               
,spiritually-minded men are especially  
liable to this form of error4  ,it is a 
mistake to think that ,christological   
questions were settled once and for all 
in the fifth century4  ,each generation 
has to settle them afresh4              
,accordingly1 to exhibit the            
consequences of the monophysite formula1
 to show how wrong abstract ideas       
develop into wrong concrete ideas and   
falsify ,christian practice1 is a task  
of practical and present-day importance4

    ,,classification ,,of ,,monophysite 
,,errors  ,two classes of erroneous     
beliefs result from a misconception of  
the relation between ,god and man in    
,christ4  ,there arise1 on the one hand1
 false opinions about the deity of      
,christ1 and on the other1 false        
opinions as to ,his manhood4  ,we shall 
adopt this classification as we         
investigate the doctrinal consequences  
of the monophysite formula4  ,it is the 
method followed in one of the earliest  
systematic criticisms of the heresy4    
,leo's ,tome1 or letter to ,flavian1    
contains a lucid statement of the       
catholic doctrine of the incarnation1   
and an acute analysis of the system of  
,eutyches1 the heresiarch4  ,he         
summarises the errors of ,eutyches under
 two heads2 there are two main counts in
 his indictment of the heresy4          
,eutyches1 he contends1 makes ,jesus    
,christ deus passibilis et homo falsus4 
,eutyches and his followers compromised 
both deity and humanity4  ,the deity    

becomes passible1 the humanity unreal4  
,all the monophysite misbeliefs can be  
classified under one or other of these  
two heads4    ,,the ,,concept           
,,impassibility ,,as ,,applied ,,to     
,,deity  ,we shall take first those     
errors that compromise the nature of the
 deity1 and shall preface our analysis  
by an explanation of the meaning of the 
term deus impassibilis4  ,the           
impassibility of ,god is the            
corner-stone of spiritual monotheism4   
,christianity owes it1 as a philosophic 
doctrine1 largely to ,aristotle4  ,he   
conceived deity as actus purus1 as the  
,one who moves without being moved1 a   
causa sui4 ,the popular gods of ,greece 
were passible2 they were possible       
objects of sense2 they were acted on    
largely as man is acted on4  ,they had a
 beginning1 and were subject to many of 
the processes of time4  ,they were      
swayed by human motives4  ,they were1 at
 times1 angry1 afraid1 unsatisfied1     
ambitious1 jealous4  ,aristotle gave to 

the world the conception of a           
transcendent ,god1 a being who is real  
and yet is without body1 parts and      
passions1 who cannot receive idolatrous 
worship1 and is not an object of sense4 
,impassibility was one of the highest   
attributes of this being4  ,the         
attribute does not involve or imply     
absence of feeling4  ,originally it had 
no reference to feeling1 in the         
psychological sense of that word4  ,it  
certainly excludes incidentally the     
lower1 specifically human feelings1     
feelings caused by external stimuli1    
feelings due to want or to lack of      
power4  ,it does not exclude the higher 
affections from the deity4  ,even in the
 nsis noses of ,aristotle1 there is room
 for the transcendent bliss of divine   
self-contemplation4  ,much more in the  
,christian ,god is there room for       
spontaneous feeling1 springing from ,his
 own nature1 the necessary concomitant  
of thought and will4  ,impassibility is 
a comprehensive attribute4  ,originally 

negative1 it soon acquired a rich       
positive connotation4  ,an impassible   
,god is one who is outside space and    
time4  ,the attribute connotes creative 
power1 eternity1 infinity1 permanence4  
,a passible ,god is corruptible1 i4e4   
susceptible to the processes of         
becoming1 change1 and decay4  ,if to-day
 theists have to be on their guard      
against debased conceptions of deity1 in
 the plausible garb of an invisible     
king1 of a finite or suffering ,god1    
much more was such caution necessary in 
the early centuries of the ,christian   
era4 ,christians who came daily and     
hourly into contact with polytheistic   
beliefs and practices had to be very    
jealous for the concept of              
impassibility4  ,it represented to them 
all that was distinctive in the highest 
region of their ,faith4  ,monophysitism1
 as we proceed to show1 compromised this
 article of the ,faith4  ,its adherents 
did not1 perhaps1 do so intentionally4  
,in fact1 the first generation of       

monophysites maintained that their      
definition safeguarded the              
impassibility4  ,it was zeal for the    
honour of the ,son of ,god that induced 
them to deny ,him all contact with      
humanity4  ,their good intentions1      
however1 could not permanently          
counteract the evil inherent in their   
system4  ,in later generations the evil 
came to the surface4  ,theopaschitism1  
the doctrine that openly denies the     
impassibility of the godhead1 flourished
 in the monophysite churches4           
,,monism ,,entails ,a ,,debased         
,,conception ,,of ,,deity  ,the         
metaphysical basis of monophysitism made
 this result inevitable4 ,extremes meet4
  ,extreme spirituality readily passes  
into its opposite4 ,it cuts the ground  
from under its own feet4  ,it soars     
beyond its powers1 and falls into the   
mire of materialism4  ,illustrations of 
this fact can be found in the history of
 philosophy4  ,the ,stoics1 for         
instance1 contrived to be both          

pantheists and materialists4  ,coming   
nearer to our own time1 we find         
,hegelianism explained in diametrically 
opposite ways4  ,after ,hegel's death   
his disciples split into opposing camps2
 one party maintained that the real was 
spirit1 the other that it was matter4   
,each party claimed the authority of the
 master for their view4  ,the divergence
 is easy to explain4  ,from spiritual   
monism it is a short step to            
materialistic monism4  ,for the monist1 
all is on one level of being4  ,he may  
by constant effort keep that level high4
  ,but gravity will act4  ,we are more  
prone to degrade ,god to our level1 than
 to rise to ,his4  ,the same truth can  
be put in abstracto4  ,unless the       
relation between ,god and the world be  
preserved as a true relation1 the higher
 term will sooner or later fall to the  
level of the lower1 and be lost in it4  
,this rule holds as well in movements of
 religious thought4 ,the monophysite    
strove for a lofty conception of deity  

but achieved a low one4  ,he undermined 
the doctrine of impassibility by the    
very measures he took to secure it4  ,in
 the technical language of ,christology 
the monophysites' debased conception of 
deity was a consequence of confounding  
the natures4 ,attributes and actions1   
belonging properly only to ,christ's    
humanity1 were ascribed recklessly to   
,his divinity4  ,the test phrase        
theotokos1 invaluable as a protest      
against ,nestorianism1 became a         
precedent for all sorts of doctrinal    
extravagancies4  ,the famous addition to
 the ,trisagion1 who wast crucified for 
us1 which for a time won recognition as 
sound and catholic1 was first made by   
the monophysite ,bishop of ,antioch4#b  
,both these phrases have scriptural     
authority1 and they are justified by the
 communicatio idiomatum4  ,but they are 
liable to misuse and misinterpretation4 
,all depended on how they were said and 
who said them4  ,the monophysite meant  
one thing by them1 the catholic another4

  ,the arrire pense of the monophysite  
gave them a wrong turn4  ,he was always 
on the look-out for paradox in ,christ's
 life4  ,he emphasised such phrases as  
appeared to detract from the reality of 
,his human experiences4  ,he spoke of   
,christ as ruling the universe when ,he 
lay in the manger1 or as directing the  
affairs of nations from the ,cross4     
,the catholic can approve these phrases2
 in the mouth of a monophysite they have
 a heretical sound4  ,they suggest a    
passible ,god2 they degrade the infinite
 to the level of the finite4 ,the       
monophysite confounds the natures1 and  
so he has no right to appeal to the     
communicatio idiomatum4  ,unless the    
idiomata are admitted as such1 unless   
they are preserved in their             
distinctness1 there can be no           
communicatio between them4  ,if they are
 fused1 they cannot act and react upon  
each other4  ,the monophysite1 by       
identifying the natures1 forfeits the   
right to use the term ,theotokos and the

 ,trisagion addition4  ,on his lips     
their inevitable implication is a finite
 suffering ,god4    ,,monophysitism     
,,and ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,the       
,,trinity  ,monophysitism was not       
originally or per se a ,trinitarian     
heresy4 ,equally with catholics and     
,nestorians its adherents accepted the  
,nicene definition4  ,they professed to 
believe in one ,god in three co-equal   
persons4  ,this belief1 firmly held in  
all that it involves1 would have kept   
them from attributing passibility to the
 ,godhead1 and ultimately have          
neutralised the errors of their         
,christology4  ,but their ,christology  
corrupted their theology4  ,abandoning  
all vital relation between ,god and man 
in ,christ1 they abandoned the relation 
in the ,godhead4  ,the internal and     
external relations of the ,godhead are  
mutually dependent4  ,if there be no    
trinity of persons1 the incarnation is  
impossible4  ,were ,god a bare monad1   
,he could not impart ,himself and remain

 ,himself4  ,the fact that there are    
related persons in the deity is the only
 justification for the use of the       
phrases discussed in the previous       
paragraph4  ,when the catholic says1    
,god was born1 suffered1 died1 he is    
right1 because his presupposition is    
right4  ,when the monophysite uses the  
same words1 he is wrong1 because his    
presupposition is wrong4  ,the catholic 
preserves in the background of his      
thought the distinction between the ousa
 and the threefold hypstasis1 between   
the essential godhead and the three     
persons4  ,so he is in no danger of     
ascribing passion to the essence or to  
the persons of ,father or ,holy ,spirit4
  ,when he says ,god was born1 he is    
compressing two statements into one4    
,he means ,christ was born1 and ,christ 
was ,god4  ,not in respect of what ,he  
has in common with the other persons of 
the ,trinity1 but in respect of ,his    
property of sonship did ,he lower       
,himself to the plane of suffering4     

,the catholic holds not a suffering     
,god1 but a suffering divine person4    
,he maintains an impassible ,god1 but a 
passible ,christ4  ,a dead ,god is a    
contradiction in terms2 a ,christ who   
died is the hope of humanity4           
,monophysite theology became involved in
 further embarrassments4 ,unwillingness 
to attribute passibility to ,god1       
coupled with the desire to remain in    
some sort trinitarians1 forced many of  
the monophysites into the ,sabellian    
position4  ,deity1 they said in effect1 
did not suffer in the second person of  
the trinity1 because there is no such   
person4  ,the persons of the trinity are
 simply characters assumed by the       
monadic essence1 or aspects under which 
men view it4  ,on this showing1 the     
,logos1 who was incarnate1 had no       
personal subsistence4 ,the relation     
between ,god and man ever remains       
impersonal4  ,christ1 qua divine1 was   
only an aspect or effluence of deity4   
,this1 for the monophysite1 was the one 

alternative to the doctrine of a        
passible ,god4 ,he was faced with a     
desperate dilemma4  ,if he retained his 
belief in a transcendent ,god1 he must  
surrender belief in a triune ,god4  ,he 
could choose between the two2 but his   
,christology permitted no third choice4 
,for him1 the only alternative to a     
finite ,god was a lone ,god4  ,as a     
result monophysite theology oscillated  
between denial of the impassibility of  
,god and denial of his three-fold       
personality4  ,in either case the       
orthodox doctrine of the godhead was    
abandoned4  ,one of the stock questions 
propounded by the catholics to the      
monophysites was1 ,was the trinity      
incomplete when the ,son of ,god was on 
earth8  ,the question is crudely        
expressed1 as it ignores the type of    
existence proper to spiritual           
personality2 but it contains a          
sufficiently sound ad hominem argument4 
,the monophysite could not say yes1 or  
he would then be driven to assert a     

passible ,god4  ,if he said no1 his     
reply was tantamount to the assertion   
that the whole essence of the ,godhead  
was incarnate4  ,the logic of this      
dilemma was so cogent that not a few    
monophysites succumbed to it1 and       
adopted a position similar to that of   
the earlier ,patripassianists4  ,these  
seceded from the monophysite church1 and
 founded an independent sect1 called the
 ,theopaschites4  ,as often happens1 the
 sect is1 doctrinally1 more             
representative than the parent body4    
,the ,theopaschites were the thinkers   
who had the courage to push the         
monophysite doctrines to their logical  
conclusions4  ,those who did not secede1
 unable to defend their own doctrinal   
position1 retaliated with the           
counter-charge of tetratheism4  ,this   
stroke was simply a confession of       
weakness4  ,monism was strangling their 
,christianity at every turn4  ,instead  
of breaking free from it1 they pretended
 that their opponents were polytheists4 

,the catholic1 however1 was neither     
monist nor pluralist4  ,the incarnation 
was not the addition of a fourth divine 
being to the trinity4  ,the essence of  
the godhead remained complete1 unchanged
 and impassible2 while the hypostatic   
union of ,god and man in ,christ made   
possible the assumption of a passible   
nature by the person of the ,son of     
,god4    ,,monophysitism ,,and          
,,islam--,,sabellianism ,,the           
,,connecting ,,link  ,it is in place    
here to point out the somewhat intimate 
connection that existed between         
monophysitism and ,islam4  ,the         
monophysites held the outposts of the   
,empire4  ,mahomet came into contact    
with them1 and it was probably from them
 that he formed his conception of       
,christian doctrine4  ,the later history
 of the monophysite churches shows that 
they often secured a large measure of   
toleration at the hands of the ,caliphs1
 while the diphysites were being        
rigorously persecuted4  ,lapses to      

,islam were not infrequent1 and in some 
periods apostasy on a large scale       
occurred4  ,cases are on record even of 
monophysite patriarchs who abjured their
 faith and joined the followers of the  
,prophet4  ,the connection between      
monophysitism and ,islam was not        
fortuitous4  ,there was a doctrinal     
affinity between them4  ,both systems   
were rigidly monotheistic4  ,both       
degraded the notion of deity by a       
perverse attempt to exalt it4  ,both cut
 redemption and mediation out of their  
religion4  ,the family likeness between 
the two systems does not extend beyond  
the realm of the doctrine of supreme    
deity4  ,in other respects the religion 
of the sword and the religion of love   
have little or nothing in common4       
,crescent and ,cross are poles asunder4 
,the monophysites as a body remained    
nominally and in intention ,christians  
and trinitarians4  ,but in the doctrinal
 area specified the resemblance holds4  
,it could hardly be otherwise4          

,sabellian tendencies were always       
present and powerful in the monophysite 
communion1 and ,sabellianism is a long  
step in the direction of ,islam4        
,sabellius taught in effect1 ,allah is  
one4  ,the three persons1 for him1 were 
only aspects of the one indivisible     
deity4 ,there are no distinct entities  
corresponding to the names of ,father1  
,son and ,holy ,spirit4  ,sabellianism  
is intimately associated with monism in 
all its phases4  ,monophysitism being   
essentially monist could not escape the 
taint4  ,whether ,sabellianism made the 
heretics monophysites1 or monophysitism 
made them ,sabellians1 we need not      
inquire4  ,the two creeds are bound up  
in the same bundle by the tie of monism4
  ,the relation of the ,son to the      
,father and the relation of the ,son to 
humanity are vitally connected4         
,misconception of the one relation      
entails misconception of the other4     
,denial of relation in the godhead goes 
hand in hand with denial of relation in 

,christ4  ,if the theologian reduces the
 latter to bare unity1 he does the same 
for the former4 ,catholic ,christology  
is thus a necessary deduction from      
trinitarian dogma4  ,nicaea necessitated
 ,chalcedon4  ,to safeguard the         
distinction of persons in the godhead1 a
 distinction in the natures of ,christ  
was essential4  ,to preserve intact the 
latter distinction1 the proprium of the 
,son and ,his personal subsistence had  
to be kept distinct from the proprium   
and subsistence of the ,father4    ,,the
 ,,christological ,,errors ,,of         
,,monophysitism  ,we leave here the area
 of theology and come to that of        
,christology4  ,we have exhibited the   
monophysite errors with respect to the  
doctrine of primal deity2 we now proceed
 to analyse their views with respect to 
the incarnate ,christ4  ,the former     
subject leads the thinker into deep     
water2 the layman is out of his depth in
 it2 so it does not furnish material for
 a popular controversy4  ,it is         

otherwise with the latter subject4      
,here the issue is narrowed to a point4 
,it becomes a question of fact1 namely1 
,was ,christ a real man8  ,the question 
and most of the answers given to it are 
readily intelligible1 and they naturally
 gave rise to heated controversy4       
,theopaschitism is1 as we have shown1 a 
tendency inherent in the heresy1 but one
 slow to come to the surface1 and one   
easily counter-acted and suppressed by  
the personal piety of the monophysite4  
,its docetism1 the assertion of the     
unreality of ,christ's human nature1    
lies on the surface4  ,no amount of     
personal piety can neutralise it4  ,it  
has had1 and still has1 a crippling     
effect on the faith of devout           
,christians4  ,even where it is not     
carried to the length of formal heresy1 
it spreads a haze of unreality over the 
gospel story1 and dulls the edge of     
belief4  ,the second count of ,leo's    
charge against the monophysites was1 it 
will be remembered1 that their          

presentation of ,christ made ,him homo  
falsus4  ,under this heading homo falsus
 may be classed a wide group of         
erroneous tenets1 ranging from the      
crudities of early docetism to the      
subtleties of ,apollinarianism4  ,we    
propose to sketch those of major        
importance4  ,no attempt will be made to
 take them in their historical order or 
historical setting4  ,further1 it is not
 implied that they all formed part of   
the official doctrine of the monophysite
 church4  ,the standard of belief in    
that communion was constantly varying1  
and the history of its dogma would need 
a work to itself4  ,we shall deal with  
those ,christological errors1 which1    
whether part of the official monophysite
 creed or not1 are logical results of   
the monophysite formula4  ,unreality may
 be predicated of ,christ's human nature
 as a whole1 or in respect of its parts4
  ,consubstantiality with humanity may  
be denied of the whole of his human     
nature2 or deficiency in one or other of

 the essential constituents of human    
nature may be alleged4  ,we shall deal  
first with those errors that concern the
 entire nature1 coming later to the     
errors in respect of one or more of its 
several parts4  ,suspicion of the       
reality of ,christ's human nature as a  
whole is characteristic of all          
monophysite thought4  ,this suspicion1  
not always formulated or expressed1 is  
everywhere present4  ,if the            
monophysites admitted the fact of ,his  
true manhood1 they denied or neglected  
the religious value of that fact4       
,their spurious spirituality rebelled   
against a dogma which seemed to tie the 
infinite down to a point in history4    
,the fact that the ,son of ,god lived a 
perfect human life contained no         
inspiration for them4  ,they idealised  
the incarnation4  ,it was not for them a
 historical event4  ,this is a corollary
 to the proposition1 maintained by their
 great champion1 ,philoxenus1 that no   
addition to ,his person took place4  ,it

 is tantamount to saying that the union 
of divine and human in ,christ is purely
 conceptual4  ,when the monophysite     
faced the question1 ,what change in     
,christ did the incarnation effect8 his 
formula constrained him to reply1 ,it   
made no change4  ,the deity of the      
person was not denied4  ,the            
pre-existent ,logos and the ,christ who 
walked in ,galilee were admittedly one  
and the same4  ,the second person of the
 trinity and ,jesus of ,nazareth were   
one personality4  ,if ,bethlehem made no
 change in that personality1 it was     
purposeless1 and the import of the      
incarnation disappears4    ,,the        
,,monophysite ,,theory ,,of ,a          
,,composition ,,of ,,natures  ,for the  
consistent monophysites1 then1 the human
 nature1 as a psychic entity with       
peculiar properties1 did not survive the
 incarnation4  ,they did1 however1 allow
 it a verbal reality4  ,they admitted a 
composition of natures1 and this        
composition provided for them whatever  

degree of reality the incarnation       
possessed4  ,on this point their        
,christology passed through several     
stages of development1 the later stages 
showing progressive improvement on the  
earlier4  ,they distinguished three     
senses of the word composition4  ,first1
 they said1 it might mean absorption1 as
 when a drop of water is absorbed in a  
jar of wine4 ,second1 it might imply the
 transmutation of constituent particles1
 as when a third unlike thing is formed 
from two4  ,thirdly1 there is           
composition when1 from the association  
of two whole and entire things1 a third 
whole and entire compound thing is      
formed without loss to the components4  
,they illustrated the third mode of     
composition by the union in man of soul 
and body4  ,the pre-,eutychian          
monophysites regarded the hypostatic    
union as a composition in the first     
sense of the word4 ,they spoke of       
,christ's human nature as absorbed in   
the divine1 as is a drop of vinegar in  

the ocean4  ,eutyches adopted the term  
in its second sense4  ,he taught that   
the ,word became flesh#c as the         
atmosphere assumes bodily form and      
becomes rain or snow under the influence
 of the wind1 and as water becomes ice  
by reason of the cold air4  ,philoxenus 
in a later generation saw that both     
these positions were wrong and the      
similes misleading4  ,he taught a       
hypostatic union totally devoid of      
confusion or loss or commutation of the 
elements of the two natures4 ,to        
illustrate his meaning he used the      
simile supplied by the ,athanasian      
creed1 as the reasonable soul and flesh 
is one man1 so ,god and ,man is one     
,christ4  ,this position is a vast      
improvement on that of the original     
monophysites4  ,it was ground gained to 
secure the admission that in any sense  
,christ was very man4  ,but the         
monophysites never learned the true     
manner of the union1 namely1 that       
,christ was one2 not by conversion of   

the ,godhead into flesh1 but by taking  
of the ,manhood into ,god2 one          
altogether2 not by confusion of         
,substance but by unity of ,person4     
,read in this connection the assertion  
that ,god and man is one ,christ1 as the
 reasonable soul and flesh is one man1  
is orthodox2 read apart from this       
context1 it is ambiguous4  ,if the      
simile be kept as a simile1 as a mere   
suggestion or hint as to how1 in        
general1 two may compose one and yet    
remain two1 then no exception can be    
taken to it4  ,if1 however1 the clause  
be interpreted as a proportion sum1     
assigning corresponding values to the   
different terms1 then it savours        
strongly of ,apollinarianism4  ,most    
monophysites1 like many moderns1        
probably understood it in the           
mathematical sense4  ,christ1 they      
argued1 was ,god and man1 just as man is
 rational soul and body2 the terms are  
in proportion2 therefore the divine     
nature was the rational soul1 and the   

human nature was the body4  ,they forgot
 that the free act of the whole divine  
person in assuming man underlies the    
union and makes it efficacious2 they    
gave srx2 the narrow meaning of sma1    
they set before themselves the picture1 
not of the infinite robing in the       
finite1 but of the union of mind and    
matter4  ,consequently they habitually  
spoke of the ,logos1 as assuming1 not   
man or a human nature1 but a body4      
,such in its varying phases was the     
monophysite doctrine of composition4 ,at
 its worst1 it contained a direct denial
 of the real humanity of ,christ4  ,at  
its best1 it falls far short of the     
catholic doctrine of ,his real1 perfect 
and complete humanity4  ,the permanent  
assumption of human nature into the     
transcendent personality had no meaning 
for the heretic party4  ,if it had taken
 place1 it was1 they thought1 merely    
momentary1 with no after-effects1 the   
passing of a summer cloud across the    
face of the sun4  ,we have considered   

the monophysites' view of ,christ's     
human nature1 regarded as an integral   
psychic entity4  ,it is evident that    
they either undervalued it or denied its
 existence4  ,the more consistent       
thinkers of their party maintained that 
the incarnation had made no difference  
in the being of ,christ1 and that       
therefore ,his human nature had no      
objective reality4  ,those who shrank   
from carrying the doctrine to that      
length conceded to the orthodox that the
 incarnation had to some extent modified
 the being of ,christ1 that its net     
result was a composition4 ,further      
analysis showed that this concession was
 rendered nugatory2 that in whatever    
sense the word composition was taken1 it
 was inadequate to express the          
hypostatic union2 that the composition  
proved in its first significance        
illusory1 in its second1 hybridous1 in  
its third1 ,apollinarianist4  ,we pass  
on now to review the human nature in its
 constituent parts1 and it will be seen 

that the heretical formula undermines   
faith in respect of each several part4  
,,the ,,parts ,,of ,,human ,,nature     
,from the standpoint of psychology human
 nature is divisible into parts4 ,the   
division must not be taken as absolute2 
for the whole is a unity1 and the parts 
are not discrete quanta4  ,the division 
is rather a classification of psychic   
states according to predominating       
features4 ,the classification           
corresponds1 however1 to the facts of   
experience1 and so psychology is        
justified in making use of it4  ,we     
shall adopt it in our investigation of  
the psychology of ,christ4  ,the        
sharpest dividing line is that between  
immaterial and material1 between soul   
and body4  ,the states of the soul fall 
into three well-marked groups1 thought1 
will1 and feeling4  ,the physical and   
the psychic are not always              
distinguishable4  ,still more uncertain 
and tentative is the identification in  
the psychic of cognitive1 volitional1   

and emotional faculties4  ,but in every 
man these parts are found4  ,they are   
constituents of human nature4  ,there   
may be other elements as yet unanalysed2
 but there can be no complete humanity  
that is deficient in respect of any of  
these parts4  ,we propose to take them  
singly in the above order1 to show their
 existence in the historic ,christ1 and 
to expose the monophysite attempts to   
explain them away4    ,,christ',s ,,body
  ,it is obvious to an unprejudiced     
reader of the gospels that ,christ's    
pre-resurrection body was real and      
normal4  ,it was an organism of flesh   
and blood1 of the same constitution and 
structure as ours4  ,it occupied space1 
and was ordinarily subject to the laws  
of space4  ,it was visible and tangible4
  ,it shared the natural processes of   
birth1 growth1 and metabolism4  ,at the 
resurrection a catastrophic change took 
place in it4  ,it was still a body4  ,it
 was still ,christ's body4  ,continuity 
was preserved4  ,the evidences of       

continuity were external1 and so strong 
as to convince doubters4  ,we cannot    
fathom either the change or the         
continuity4  ,what we know is that after
 the resurrection the body was not so   
subject as before to the laws of space4 
,it was1 it would seem1 of finer atoms  
and subtler texture4  ,it had reached   
the height of physical being1 and       
development apparently had ceased4  ,it 
was the entelechy of the human body4    
,it was still real1 though no longer    
normal4  ,to employ paradox1 it was     
natural of the species supernatural4    
,it was the natural body raised to a    
higher power4  ,it was natural to human 
denizens of a higher world4  ,body's    
function is two-fold4  ,it both limits  
the soul and expresses it4  ,it narrows 
the activity of the person to a point1  
and thus serves as a fine instrument for
 action upon matter4  ,at the same time 
it draws out the potentialities of the  
soul and fixes its development4  ,the   
post-resurrection body was apparently   

less limitative and more expressive4    
,the foregoing considerations may be    
summed up in the form of three dogmata1 
all of which orthodox ,christianity     
teaches4  ,these are1 first1 that       
,christ's pre-resurrection body was real
 and natural2 second1 that ,his         
resurrected and ascended body is real   
and supernatural2 third1 that there was 
a real continuity1 whether by           
development or by epigenesis between the
 two4  ,in all these points the         
monophysites missed the truth4  ,their  
presuppositions misled them4  ,as       
monists they were inclined to regard    
matter as sinful4  ,they could not      
conceive the infinite donning a soiled  
robe4  ,our body with its hateful wants 
could not1 they thought1 be a tabernacle
 for the ,logos4  ,the idea of the      
native dignity of the human frame and of
 its being ennobled by the ,king's      
indwelling was completely foreign to the
 monophysites' ways of thinking4  ,since
 such was the background of their       

thought it was inevitable that          
definitely heretical doctrines should   
result4  ,in the first place we meet the
 flat denial of the reality of ,christ's
 body4  ,even in apostolic days those   
who held this heresy were found4  ,they 
denied that ,christ had come in the     
flesh4  ,they were styled docetists or  
phantasiasts4  ,according to them the   
body had no objective reality4  ,it was 
a phantom4  ,its reality was entirely   
subjective4  ,it was the effect produced
 on the perceptions of those who        
associated with the mysterious          
spirit-being4  ,the ,logos1 as viewed by
 the phantasiasts1 at the incarnation   
struck ,his being into the bounds of    
time1 but not of space4 ,divine         
personality1 they thought1 did not      
require and could not use a material    
medium4  ,this doctrine was not part of 
the official monophysite creed2 but1 as 
pointed out in the previous chapter1    
monophysitism was a lineal descendant of
 docetism1 and always showed traces of  

its lineage4  ,the saying that1 ,christ 
brought ,his body from heaven1 was      
commonly attributed to ,eutyches4  ,he  
denied having said it1 but1 at any rate1
 the general feeling of his followers   
was that ,christ's physical nature was  
divine and therefore not consubstantial 
with ours4  ,such doctrines destroy the 
discipline of faith in the resurrection4
 ,the radical difference between the    
natural and the resurrection body is    
blurred by them4  ,the immense change is
 abolished4  ,the resurrection becomes  
purely a spiritual change1 which even a 
non-,christian could accept4  ,the body1
 according to the tenor of monophysite  
teaching1 was spirit before the         
resurrection and spirit after it4  ,thus
 the ascension too becomes purely       
spiritual4  ,it is shorn of half its    
significance4 ,the ,christian's hope for
 the human body rests on the fact that  
,christ returned to heaven with         
something that ,he did not bring from   
heaven1 namely1 a glorified human body4 

,if ,he brought that body with ,him from
 heaven1 the main significance of ,his  
human dispensation falls to the ground4 
,the incarnation becomes unreal1        
illusory1 impotent4  ,an offshoot of    
docetism that flourished among the      
monophysites is the aphthartodocetic    
heresy4  ,this is of considerable       
historical importance4  ,large numbers  
of the ,syrian and ,egyptian            
monophysites embraced it1 and seceded   
from the parent church4  ,it became part
 of the official creed of ,armenian     
,christianity1 and that church has not  
repudiated it to this day4  ,there are  
good1 though hardly conclusive1 grounds 
for holding that the emperor ,justinian1
 profound theologian and life-long      
champion of orthodoxy1 was converted to 
the heretical theory in the last few    
months of his life4#d                   
,aphthartodocetism1 affirming the       
reality of ,christ's body1 denies that  
it was subject to the wear and tear of  
life4  ,the body1 as this heresy taught1

 was superior to natural process2 it was
 neither corrupted nor corruptible4     
,the term corruptibility has the wide   
significance of organic process1 that is
 the lot of all created living things4  
,a milder form of the heresy asserted   
that ,christ's body was corruptible but 
was not corrupted4 ,aphthartodocetism   
springs from a spurious spirituality1   
from a fastidiousness that has no place 
in true religion4  ,it is symptomatic of
 ,manicheanism1 which associates matter 
with sin4  ,christians affirm           
sinlessness of ,christ's humanity2 they 
do not affirm immateriality of ,his     
body4  ,the monophysites1 in abandoning 
the true ,christology1 were predisposed 
to the infection of this heresy4  ,a    
being in whom organic process was       
present seemed to these heretics no fit 
object of worship4 ,they called the     
orthodox ,ctistolatrae or               
,phthartolatrae1 worshippers of the     
created or corruptible4  ,monophysites  
of all shades of opinion united in      

condemning the practice of worshipping  
,christ's human nature4  ,that practice 
was in their eyes both idle and         
injurious2 idle1 because the human      
nature did not exist as a separate      
entity2 injurious1 because it fixed the 
mind of the worshipper on the finite4   
,in consequence they were much opposed  
to all observances based on a belief in 
,his humanity4  ,images or other        
representations of ,him in human form   
seemed to them idolatrous4  ,the        
monophysite church was not directly     
concerned in the iconoclastic           
controversy1 but their doctrines were   
indirectly responsible for it4 ,in fact 
the great monophysites1 ,severus and    
,philoxenus1 have been styled the       
fathers of the iconoclasts4             
,,monophysitism ,,blind ,,to ,,the      
,,dual ,,character ,,of ,,christ',s     
,,experience  ,such were the            
difficulties and errors into which their
 ,christology forced the monophysites   
with respect to ,christ's body4         

,difficulties equally great and errors  
equally fatal attended their attempt to 
conceive the conjunction of psychic     
elements with the divine person4 ,their 
formula was too narrow4  ,it compelled  
them to shut their eyes to one          
outstanding fact1 namely1 the duality of
 ,christ's earthly experience4  ,this   
fact confronts the reader on every page 
of the gospels4  ,the duality is        
deep-seated2 it extends to each psychic 
element1 yet stops short of the         
personality4  ,in the world of ,christ's
 nature there are two hemispheres4  ,his
 experiences are on two planes4 ,in both
 of these hemispheres or planes we find 
thought1 will1 and feeling4  ,his       
thought on the higher plane is radically
 different in mode and scope from ,his  
thought on the lower plane4  ,the two   
are of a different order4  ,the same    
difference holds with respect to the    
other two psychic elements4  ,we propose
 to exemplify this assertion1 first1 in 
the case of cognition1 and then in the  

case of will and feeling4 ,this         
procedure will simplify the task of     
exposing the further consequences of the
 monophysite ,christology4    ,,the     
,,duality ,,of ,,christ',s ,,cognition  
,the duality of ,christ's intellectual  
experience is evident to a ,new         
,testament student who has any          
acquaintance with psychology4  ,we find 
in ,christ two cognitive faculties with 
two dominant universes of thought and   
knowledge4  ,on occasions ,he speaks and
 acts as if ,he read at a glance all the
 secrets of nature and the human heart1 
as if all time past1 present1 and future
 was an open book to him1 as if ,he were
 in the counsels of the ,most ,high4    
,on those occasions divine intuition    
superseded in ,him the slow and faulty  
methods of human intelligence2 thought  
was vision1 intellect intuition1        
knowledge omniscience4  ,thus ,his      
divine nature cognised and knew4  ,that1
 however1 is only one half of the       
picture4  ,on other occasions his mind  

appears to have been perfectly human4   
,his intelligence and perceptive        
faculties differed not essentially from 
ours4  ,he asked questions and sought   
information4 ,he used human categories4 
,he progressed in wisdom4  ,the         
development of ,his mind was gradual4   
,his knowledge was relative to ,his age 
and surroundings4  ,memory and          
obliviscence1 those complementary and   
perhaps constituent elements of         
soul-being1 attention1 sensation1       
recognition1 and discursive reasoning1  
all these exhibitions of the workings of
 the normal mind appeared in ,christ4   
,in this manner ,his human nature       
cognised and knew4    ,,monophysitism   
,,entails ,,the ,,apollinarian ,,view   
,,of ,,christ',s ,,human ,,nature ,,as  
,,merely ,,an ,,animated ,,body  ,the   
,catholic welcomes these evidences of   
the duality of ,christ's intellectual   
life4  ,on the theoretical side1 they   
confirm the central dogma of orthodox   
,christology4  ,on the practical side1  

they give him authority for seeking     
,christ's sympathy in matters           
intellectual4  ,he realises that since  
,christ understands the education of the
 mind and can share his intellectual    
difficulties1 there is hope for the     
redemption and regeneration of the      
highest part of his nature4  ,the       
monophysite finds neither support for   
his dogma1 nor inspiration for life1 in 
the fact that ,christ had a human mind4 
,he is blind to the fact4  ,he has seen 
half the picture and regards it as the  
whole4  ,his ideal is a being in whom   
intuition supersedes intellect1 whose   
knowledge is immediate1 absolute1 and   
complete4  ,the orthodox who held that  
,christ had and1 at ordinary times1 used
 a human reason1 perfect of its kind1   
but still human in all the implications 
of the word1 were in his eyes ,agnotae2 
they were unbelievers who asserted the  
ignorance of ,christ and set bounds to  
the vision and knowledge of the         
infinite4  ,the monophysite would modify

 his opinions and approach the catholic 
position on other doctrinal points1 but 
never on this4  ,he might be persuaded  
to admit that ,christ's body and animal 
soul were real and human1 but to the    
consubstantiality of ,christ's mind with
 man's he would not subscribe4  ,the    
,apollinarian strain in monophysitism   
was persistent4  ,the later monophysites
 never succeeded in banishing it from   
their system4  ,by ,apollinarianism the 
humanity of ,christ is crippled in its  
highest member4  ,it is a realm shorn of
 its fairest province4  ,according to   
,apollinaris1 all that ,christ assumed  
was an animated body4  ,his theory is   
like an ingenious system of canal locks 
for letting divine personality descend  
from the upper to the lower waters4     
,the ingenuity displayed in it condemns 
it4  ,it is an artificial makeshift4    
,the psychology on which it rests is    
antiquated4 ,the picture of ,christ it  
presents does not correspond to the     
recorded facts of ,his life4  ,christ's 

human nature1 as chiselled by the       
,apollinarian sculptor1 is a torso4     
,such an image fails to satisfy the     
demands of religious feeling1 and the   
doctrines1 ,apollinarian and            
monophysite1 that enshrine it are       
therefore valueless4    ,,two ,,wills   
,,in ,,christ  ,we here leave the       
subject of cognition and pass to that of
 volition4 ,orthodoxy teaches that      
,christ had two wills4  ,this doctrine  
has a double basis4  ,in the first      
place1 it is a corollary of the doctrine
 of two natures4  ,in the second1 it is 
established by the recorded facts of the
 gospel narrative4  ,to take first the a
 priori argument4  ,a nature without a  
will is inconceivable4  ,a cognitive    
faculty without the dynamic of the      
volitional would be a machine without   
driving force4 ,the absurdity of the    
supposition1 indeed1 is not fully       
brought out by the simile4  ,for we can 
consider the machine at rest2 it would  
then have existence and potential       

activity4  ,will1 however1 is essential 
to the existence as well as to the      
activity of thought4  ,the connection   
between them is vital to both4  ,the    
psychologist distinguishes the          
respective parts each plays in life and 
marks off faculties to correspond to    
each4  ,but his distinction is only     
provisional4  ,the two develop pari     
passu1 they are never separable2 they   
act and re-act on one another4  ,without
 some degree of attention there is no   
thought1 not even perception of external
 objects4  ,attention is as much an act 
of will as of thought4  ,man does not   
first evolve ideas and then summon will 
to actuate them4  ,in the very formation
 of ideas will is present and active4   
,accordingly from the duality of        
,christ's cognitive nature the          
psychologist would infer that ,he had   
two wills4  ,there is in ,christ the    
divine will that controlled the forces  
of nature and could suspend their normal
 workings1 the will that wrought        

miracle1 the eternal will1 infinite in  
scope and power1 that was objectified in
 ,his age-long universal purpose1 in a  
word1 the will that undertook the       
superhuman task of cosmic reconstruction
 and achieved it4  ,it is not easy for  
us to conceive the co-existence of two  
wills in one person4  ,the difficulty is
 part of the discipline of faith4       
,christ's human will is no less a fact  
than ,his divine will4  ,the former     
played as large a part in ,his earthly  
experience as the latter4  ,it was      
present in all its normal phases1       
ranging from motor will to psychic      
resolve4  ,the lower forms of volition1 
motor impulse1 desire and wish1 the     
higher forms1 deliberation1 choice1     
purpose and resolve4  ,he shared them   
all with humanity4  ,there is in ,him a 
human will1 limited in scope1 varying in
 intensity1 developing with the growth  
of ,his human experience1 a will like   
ours in everything1 except that it was  
free from moral imperfection4  ,it was a

 finite will1 inasmuch as the           
conditioning cognition was finite1      
perfect of its kind1 adequate to its    
task1 never faltering1 yet of finite    
strength4  ,the two wills have each     
their own sphere4  ,they operate in     
perfect harmony4  ,only at crises1 such 
as the ,agony1 is there any appearance  
of discord4  ,the opposition there is   
only apparent4  ,the human will reaches 
its limit1 and the superhuman will      
interposes to perform the superhuman    
task4  ,the reality of the two wills1   
established for the orthodox both a     
priori and by an appeal to fact1 is     
denied by the monophysite4  ,he regards 
will as the fundamental psychic state   
and makes it an attribute of            
personality4  ,two wills1 he says1 would
 necessitate two persons4  ,he does not 
see that personality lies deeper than   
will1 and that will and cognition are   
co-ordinate attributes of nature4  ,if  
,christ had but one nature1 it follows  
that ,he had but one will and operation4

  ,the monophysite thinks of two wills  
as necessarily antagonistic1 as are     
conflicting motives in man2 so he sees  
no ethical value in dithelite doctrine4 
,as a matter of fact the moral influence
 of ,christianity would be much weakened
 by an abandonment of the doctrine of   
two wills4 ,the belief in ,christ's     
human will prevents men from despairing 
of their will4  ,human will cannot be   
wholly warped1 or wholly misdirected1 or
 utterly powerless1 since ,christ in    
,his life has shown that it can work    
along the same lines as the divine will1
 that the two can co-operate1 and that  
where the lower reaches its limit1 the  
higher can step in and perfect the work4
  ,from the historian's point of view   
the monothelite controversy is quite    
distinct from the monophysite4  ,so we  
need only take a glance at it here4  ,it
 originated in an attempt to win back   
the monophysites to the orthodox        
communion by a doctrinal compromise4    
,the emperor ,heraclius endeavoured to  

unite catholic and monophysite on the   
basis of the formula1 two natures with  
one will and operation4  ,that formula  
will not bear analysis1 and the         
emperor's attempt to use it as an       
eirenicon was a complete failure4       
,imperial pressure induced a few        
monophysites to modify their doctrine so
 far as to admit one theandric          
operation2 but the concession of one    
will from the orthodox side failed to   
win from the monophysites the expected  
concession of two natures4  ,the        
monophysites were quite consistent here4
  ,to deny will of nature is an         
elementary mistake in psychology4  ,only
 a tyro in introspection will ascribe   
will directly to personality4  ,a       
one-willed two-natured personality is   
little short of a psychological         
monstrosity4  ,an attempt to rally      
,christendom round such a figure was    
bound to fail4  ,the only lasting result
 of the emperor's activity was the      
formation of a new sect1 the ,maronites4

    ,,the ,,duality ,,of ,,christ',s    
,,emotional ,,experience  ,we come now  
to the third element in the human       
spirit4  ,it is only in modern          
psychology that feeling has secured     
recognition as a distinct constituent of
 man's nature2 so it is not surprising  
that the question as to its position in 
the incarnate ,christ was not raised in 
former days4  ,now1 however1 the        
psychology of feeling has come into its 
own1 and it has become important to     
consider whether in this particular1    
too1 ,christ shared our human           
experience4  ,here1 again1 the argument 
for maintaining the duality of ,christ's
 emotional experience is twofold4 ,it   
follows1 on the one hand1 from the      
duality of the other parts of ,his      
nature2 and1 on the other hand1 it is   
proved by the facts of ,his life as     
recorded in the gospels4  ,human nature 
involves feeling1 and two natures       
involve two universes of feeling4       
,divine personality cannot be conceived 

as devoid of feeling4 ,with men feeling 
lies in the depths of being2 it is the  
dynamic of life4  ,feeling is the inner 
reflex of acts of thought and will4  ,it
 invariably accompanies cognition and   
volition4  ,if thought and will be      
attributed to the supreme being1 the    
attribute of feeling cannot be left out4
  ,when the ,god in ,christ acted1      
divine feeling accompanied the act4     
,this surmise is proved correct on      
reference to the records of ,his life4  
,we find there two distinct emotional   
zones4  ,christ has all the blameless   
feelings natural to man4  ,there are in 
,him the feelings accompanying          
sensation2 physical pleasure and pain1  
hunger1 thirst1 weariness1 and1 in      
addition1 the higher grades of feeling1 
aesthetic1 sympathetic1 and ethical4    
,he experienced wonder1 surprise1       
righteous anger1 the sublime1 joy and   
love4  ,a life rich in emotion was the  
life of the ,man ,christ ,jesus4  ,when1
 however1 we look more closely into ,his

 experience1 we catch glimpses of       
feeling such as no man could know4  ,we 
see there transcendent passion1 great   
sorrow1 great joy1 so great that they   
would break a human heart4  ,we may     
instance the deep emotion accompanying  
,his resolve to go to meet ,his fate at 
,jerusalem1 the rejoicing in spirit at  
the success of the apostles' mission1   
,his ,agony and ,his universal love4    
,the monophysites could not recognise   
this duality in ,christ's emotional     
nature4  ,hunger and thirst1 and even   
the higher human feelings they          
considered derogatory to the ,son of    
,god4  ,even when they admitted that ,he
 suffered1 they threw a veil of mystery 
over ,his sufferings4  ,they idealised  
the ,passion4  ,they made it seem as if 
,his flesh was privileged1 as if ,his   
omnipotence excused ,him from the       
emotional experiences of humanity4      
,,summary ,,of ,,the ,,chapter  ,we have
 examined the doctrine of one nature1   
and exposed its chief consequences4  ,we

 have considered its effects in respect 
of the deity of ,christ and in respect  
of ,his manhood4  ,we have applied the  
doctrine to the human nature as a whole1
 and to the several parts that compose  
it4  ,the result of the examination may 
be summarised in brief4 ,monophysitism  
destroys what is divine in the deity and
 what is human in the humanity4  ,it    
offers to ,christians a ,christ who is  
not sufficiently above man to be able to
 help them by ,his power1 nor           
sufficiently man to be able to help them
 by ,his sympathy4  ,the monophysite    
,christ is neither very ,god nor very   
man1 but a composition in which all     
traces of the original entities are lost
 to view4    #a ,the ,chronicle of      
,zachariah of ,mitylene1 translated by  
,hamilton and ,brooks1 chap4 iii4 p4    
#df4  #b ,this addition to the          
,trisagion was officially condemned at  
the close of the #gth century owing to  
its monophysite associations4  #c       
,chronicle of ,zachariah of ,mitylene1  

translated by ,hamilton and ,brooks1 ii4
 #b1 p4 #ba4  #d ,the question of       
,justinian's orthodoxy has been debated 
by ,bury and ,hutton4  ,see ,guardian1  
,march #dth and ,april #aeth1 #ahif4    
,,chapter ,,iv  ,,the ,,ethos ,,of      
,,monophysitism  ,monophysitism         
originated in a monastery4  ,eutyches1  
the father of the monophysites1 was a   
monk4  ,the monastic temperament is     
peculiarly susceptible to this heresy1  
and the monastic element has always been
 dominant in the monophysite churches4  
,the cloister is the natural habitat of 
the doctrine of the one nature4         
,monasticism is applied monism4  ,if the
 world's existence be a sham1 if its    
value compared with ,god be negligible1 
it becomes a religious duty to avoid all
 influences that heighten the illusion  
of the world's real existence and       
intrinsic value4  ,the monist1 like the 
monk1 must renounce all secular         
interests and go out of the world4  ,the
 path of renunciation had an additional 

claim on the ,christological monist4    
,in his universal ideal1 as manifested  
in time1 the human elements were        
sublimated into the divine4             
,consequently his ideal of conduct      
imposed a negative attitude towards the 
world and a merging of his ego in the   
universal spirit4  ,these are the ruling
 elements in the spirit of the cloister1
 and these are the characteristics of   
the monophysite ethos4  ,those men1 to  
whom ,god is the sum of all reality and 
the world merely a cosmic shadow1 regard
 worship as the sole worthy activity of 
the human spirit4  ,in worship union    
with ,god is sought1 a union so close   
that the personality of the worshipper  
is absorbed into the being of the       
worshipped4  ,his experience of ,god is 
so intimate that his experience of the  
world is reduced to insignificance4  ,as
 an overpowering human love welds two   
beings into one1 and identifies their   
thoughts1 wills1 springs of action and  
even feelings1 so the amor dei          

identifies man with ,god and makes      
possible a deification of humanity4     
,deeply religious natures in all ages   
have heard this mystic call4  ,to lose  
their ego in the divine spirit is the   
height of their religious ambition4     
,the conception is lofty1 but it is not 
the ,christian ideal of life and duty4  
,mysticism and monophysitism are twin   
systems4  ,both are religious phases of 
pantheism4  ,as1 to the intellect1      
acosmism is the corollary of pantheism1 
so1 to the heart1 asceticism follows    
from mysticism4 ,whether conceived in   
terms of existence or of value1 the     
world for the mystic is an obstacle to  
the unio mystica4  ,it snares the mind  
through the senses and creates a        
fictitious -appearance of solid reality 
in sensuous objects4  ,it makes         
pretensions to goodness and attaches to 
itself a spurious value4  ,the only     
remedy is self-denial1 denial of        
existence to the world1 denial of       
credence to the senses1 denial of       

gratification to the passions1 desires1 
and inclinations4 ,the monophysites were
 mystics4  ,they were the rigorists of  
the eastern church4  ,they formed the no
 compromise party4  ,they stood for a   
thorough-going renunciation of the world
 and the flesh4  ,though they did not   
officially lay down the inherent evil of
 matter1 ,manicheanism is latent in     
their system4  ,they did not explicitly 
identify matter with the spirit of evil1
 but they had the spiritual man's       
suspicion of matter and his contempt for
 the body of the flesh4  ,abstinence1   
mortification of the flesh1 and all     
ascetic practices flourished in their   
communion4  ,art and culture were       
suspect2 they had no eye for natural    
beauty4  ,some of their hymn-writers    
possessed considerable poetic taste2 but
 poetry was discouraged by their        
leaders4  ,several of the extant letters
 of ,severus of ,antioch show that that 
patriarch did his best to banish that   
art from his church4  ,his attitude may 

be gathered from the following          
quotation4#a  ,as to ,martyrius1 the    
poet1 444 ,i wish you to know that he is
 a trouble to me and a nuisance4 ,indeed
 in the case of the others also who     
follow the same profession1 and were    
enrolled in the holy clergy of the      
,church that is with us1 ,i have        
debarred them from practising such      
poetry2 and ,i am taking much trouble to
 sever this theatrical pursuit from     
ecclesiastical gravity and modesty1 a   
pursuit that is the mother of laxity and
 is also capable of causing youthful    
souls to relax and casting them into the
 mire of fornication1 and carrying them 
to bestial passions4  ,the result of    
this asceticism was a jaundiced and     
inhuman outlook on life4  ,there was    
much piety among the monophysites1 but  
it was confined to a narrow channel4    
,their zeal for purity of doctrine      
amounted to fanaticism2 their hatred of 
the ,nestorian and of the ,melchite at  
times reached a white heat4  ,toleration

 was almost unknown in their communion4 
,the claims of humanity appeal less to a
 monophysite than to other ,christians4 
,he places all life's values in the     
other world4  ,he has no motive for     
trying to ameliorate the lot of his     
fellow-men4  ,social service has to him 
little or no divine sanction or         
religious value4  ,we are speaking only 
of general tendencies4  ,no follower of 
,christ1 however perverted his views1   
could be totally indifferent to the     
welfare of other men2 but it came       
natural to the monophysite to think that
 it does not matter much how a man lives
 in this world of shadows1 provided he  
holds communion with the world of unseen
 realities4  ,the same motive accounts  
for the rapid decline of missionary     
activity in their communion4  ,the      
,nestorians were far more active        
propagandists4 ,worship is a very high  
type of service2 but worship becomes    
selfish and sickens into sentiment1 if  
it neglects the inspiring tonic of      

contact with human need4  ,the          
monophysite ,christology encouraged that
 form of self-sacrifice1 whose goal is  
,nirvana1 which lapses lazily into the  
cosmic soul and loses itself there in   
contemplation and ecstasy4  ,it supplies
 no motive for that finer piety which   
manifests itself in ethical endeavour   
and practical philanthropy4  ,his       
,christ had not partaken of the cup of  
suffering4  ,his ,christ's advance to   
human perfection was illusory4  ,so the 
monophysite could not look for the      
sympathy of ,christ in his own          
struggles1 nor could he appeal to       
,christ's example in respect of works of
 human charity4  ,monophysitism         
considers only the religious nature of  
man1 and takes no account of his other  
needs4  ,we must therefore characterise 
the system as unsocial1 unlovely1       
unsympathetic4  ,the uncompromising     
attitude of the individual monophysites 
was reflected in their ecclesiastical   
polity4  ,we cannot but admire their    

sturdy independence4  ,the monophysite  
church stood for freedom from state     
control4  ,her principles were the      
traditional principles of the           
,alexandrian see4  ,alexandria would not
 truckle to ,constantinople1 nor let    
religion subserve imperial policy4  ,she
 would allow the catholic party to be   
,melchites 7,king's men7 and to reap all
 the temporal advantages accruing to the
 established church4  ,in this matter   
the monophysites took a narrow view2 but
 their narrowness evinces their piety4  
,they felt the evils attendant on       
,constantine's grand settlement1 and    
they made their ill-judged protest4     
,they made it for no unworthy motive4   
,there are always such thinkers in the  
church4  ,a spiritual enthusiast        
despises the outward dignity that the   
church gains from an alliance with the  
,state1 and is often blind to the       
spiritual benefits conferred on the     
nation by that alliance1 while he       
concentrates his gaze on incidental     

evils4  ,to connect with ,christology   
such an attitude towards the principle  
of ,establishment may seem forced at    
first sight4  ,the connection1 however1 
exists4  ,independence of the temporal  
power is symptomatic with that          
unworldliness which1 as we have shown   
above1 characterises monophysitism4     
,its adherents paid no respect to the   
human as such4  ,they attached no value 
to merely human institutions1 and made  
no attempt to see or foster the divine  
that is in them4  ,the argument that    
because the ,state is a human           
institution it should have no voice in  
ecclesiastical policy is typically      
monophysite2 it is the argument of one  
who could draw no inspiration from the  
human life of the ,son of ,god4         
,mysticism and rationalism have much in 
common4  ,they both are elements in the 
mental composition of almost every      
serious thinker4  ,the sterility of     
logic often drives him to seek a higher 
and surer instrument of knowledge4  ,so 

there is no inconsistency in further    
characterising the monophysites as      
rationalists4  ,the intellectuals of the
 eastern church were found mostly in    
their communion4  ,theirs was the formal
 logic point of view4  ,christ1 they    
urged1 was one and not two2 therefore   
,his nature was one and not two4  ,they 
could not see that ,he was both4  ,in   
,bergsonian language1 they used         
exclusively mechanical categories4      
,intelligence1 an instrument formed by  
contact with matter1 destined for action
 upon matter1 they used on a            
supra-material subject4 ,their thinkers 
were highly trained logicians2 they     
revelled in abstract argument2 theirs   
was a cold intellectual metaphysic1     
unwarmed by flesh and blood empiricism4 
,their narrow outlook on life1 their    
religious zeal and their rationalist    
philosophy combined to produce in them  
sectarianism of an extreme type4  ,party
 spirit ran high among them4  ,they     
fought the catholics2 they fought the   

,nestorians2 they fought one another4   
,the list of schisms that occurred in   
their communion is of amazing length4   
,the letters of ,severus of ,antioch    
make sad reading4  ,they show us that   
the patriarch had constantly to         
interfere in cases of disputed          
succession to bishoprics4  ,at almost   
every vacancy in the provincial dioceses
 there were parties formed each with    
their own nominee1 ready to schismatise 
if they could not secure recognition and
 consecration for him4  ,it is evident  
that monophysitism does not foster the  
generous1 tolerant1 humane virtues of   
,christianity4  ,it is the creed of     
monks1 mystics1 and intellectualists4   
#a ,e4 ,w4 ,brooks1 ,select ,letters of 
,severus of ,antioch1 vol4 ii4 pp4 #hh1 
#hi4     ,,chapter ,v  ,,monophysitism  
,,and ,,modern ,,psychology             
,christology divorced from empirical    
psychology is a barren science4         
,abstract discussions about person1     
nature and union of natures soon        

degenerate into logomachies4  ,if       
personality is a psychic entity1 and    
nature another distinct psychic entity1 
then the question at issue between      
diphysite and monophysite is worth      
debating4  ,if they are concepts merely1
 the debate is hollow and of purely     
academic interest4 ,a study of          
psychology clothes the dry bones with   
flesh4  ,it puts life and meaning into  
these abstractions4  ,it shows that they
 represent entities1 that something     
corresponding to the terms person and   
nature is actually part of the being of 
every man1 and that therefore their     
existence in ,christ is a proper and    
practical subject for investigation4    
,in so doing psychology provides the    
rationale of the ,christological        
controversies4  ,it justifies the church
 in her determined adherence to the     
precise expression of the truth4  ,no   
,christian with powers of introspection1
 who can distinguish in his own being   
personality and nature1 can be          

indifferent to the ,christological      
problem4  ,the problem is one of fact1  
not theory4  ,the terms and the formula 
are only of importance as expressing or 
failing to express the true facts of    
,christ's being4  ,in a word1 the       
psychology of the central figure of     
human history is the matter at issue4   
,reference to psychological fact is what
 one misses in the records of the old   
controversies4  ,the disputes read as if
 they were about shadows4  ,no doubt    
that was often the case4  ,catholics and
 non-,catholics were often agreed as to 
the substance of belief1 while owing to 
their devotion to words and formulae the
 agreement went unrecognised4  ,had the 
disputants made clear to themselves and 
to each other what they meant by their  
abstract terms1 had they translated them
 into their concrete psychological      
equivalents1 heresy and schism would    
have been less frequent4  ,it was1      
however1 almost impossible for them to  
do so1 because in their day theology was

 far more highly developed than         
psychology4  ,systematic observation of 
the workings of spirit was almost       
unknown4  ,there existed no science of  
psychology as we know it4 ,no clear     
notions attached to the terms person and
 nature4  ,they represented abstractions
 necessary to discursive reason rather  
than concrete psychic facts4  ,all      
parties shared this defect4  ,among     
catholics and ,nestorians as well as    
among monophysites knowledge of the     
constituents of human nature was of the 
most rudimentary character4 ,the        
catholic party1 however1 by keeping     
close to the facts recorded in the      
gospels1 achieved a ,christological     
formula that is psychologically         
intelligible2 while the heretical       
parties were led by their preconceived  
opinions to fashion a ,christ1 whose    
features are unrecognisable as ,god or  
man1 a psychological monstrosity4       
,,bergson',s ,,theories ,,throw ,,light 
,,on ,,christology  ,without claiming   

finality for the findings of modern     
psychology1 we can consider some results
 of the science as established4  ,they  
are sufficiently well established1 at   
any rate1 to provide a starting-point   
for our investigation4  ,in particular  
the brilliant observations and theories 
of ,m4 ,bergson throw1 so it seems to   
the writer1 a flood of light on         
,christology4  ,we propose to outline   
the two key doctrines of the ,bergsonian
 psychology and show how they confirm   
the truth of the orthodox formula and   
expose the monophysite fallacy4  ,these 
key doctrines are1 first1 the           
interpenetration of psychic states1 and1
 second1 the distinction between        
deep-seated and superficial             
consciousness4    ,,bergson',s ,,theory 
,,of ,,the ,,interpenetration ,,of      
,,psychic ,,states  ,it is1 says        
,bergson1 characteristic of psychic     
states that they do not1 like material  
things remain external to one another4  
,they inter-penetrate4  ,cut up by human

 intelligence into discrete elements1 in
 their own nature they remain a         
continuum4  ,states of mind appear      
successive and external to one another1 
because age-long association with matter
 has accustomed men to material modes of
 thought4  ,man's intelligence is a     
by-product of activity4  ,for purposes  
of action it is the externality of      
things that matters4  ,the inner        
connection is relatively unimportant4   
,men act with precision on matter1      
because perception cuts up the continuum
 of matter into bodies1 defined bodies  
no two of which can occupy the same     
space4  ,intelligence originating thus  
by contact with matter naturally prefers
 mechanical categories4 ,these          
categories applicable to matter when    
applied to higher forms of existence    
mislead4  ,we naturally conceive psychic
 states as external to one another1 and 
their interpenetration seems an         
abnormality4  ,at this stage of thought 
experience is pictured as a line of     

indefinite length1 infinitely divisible1
 whose divisions correspond to the      
moments of consciousness4  ,this spatial
 picture of mind is misleading in many  
ways1 not the least in that it can offer
 no reasonable theory of the            
subconscious4  ,thinkers who materialise
 mental experience have no room in their
 theory for the sub-conscious4  ,it is  
for them bare non-consciousness1 a      
psychic vacuum4  ,when1 however1 we     
start from this unique characteristic1  
that mind possesses1 of remaining one   
and indivisible throughout the greatest 
appearance of diversity1 the            
sub-conscious falls naturally into the  
scheme4  ,no part of our experience     
perishes4  ,it is essentially           
self-perpetuating memory4  ,the needs of
 action relegate the greater portion of 
it to the sub-conscious1 but it is      
there1 always linked to our conscious   
experience1 and only awaiting the       
occasion to emerge into the full light  
of consciousness4  ,past penetrates into

 the present4  ,one portion of our      
present penetrates into the other       
portions4  ,conscious and unconscious1  
past and present1 combine to form one   
wonderful whole4    ,,monophysitism     
,,ignores ,,the ,,duality ,,in          
,,christ',s ,,experience  ,such in      
outline is ,bergson's theory of the     
interpenetration of psychic states4  ,if
 this psychology be adopted1 the        
abstract character of the catholic      
doctrine of ,christ's being in large    
measure disappears4  ,it becomes easy to
 conceive the interpenetration of two   
natures in one ,christ4  ,further1 the  
,bergsonian psychology furnishes a      
standpoint from which criticism of      
monophysitism is easy4  ,psychology at  
the monophysite stage of thought        
conceives the moments of ,christ's      
consciousness in their mutual           
externality2 they follow each other as  
do the ticks of a clock4  ,they are     
discrete elements strung along on a     
hypothetical ego4  ,christ's experience 

is conceived as unilinear4  ,all that   
,he did1 suffered and thought is        
regarded as having taken place on one   
and the same plane of experience4  ,this
 psychology has no room for another     
plane of experience4  ,it has no room   
for a positive sub-consciousness4       
,consequently that one plane must be the
 one divine nature1 which1 as the       
monophysites taught1 absorbed the human4
  ,the one-nature theory is not true to 
the facts4  ,it overlooks the complexity
 of ,christ's experience4  ,his         
experiences lie on two different planes4
  ,he has different universes of        
thought1 different actuating wills and  
sets of feelings4  ,christ is not in one
 nature4 ,the phases of ,his            
consciousness are twofold4  ,his        
experiences fall naturally into two     
groups4  ,while one group is in         
consciousness1 the other is below the   
level of consciousness4  ,now the human 
experiences1 now the divine1 are        
uppermost4  ,both are always present4   

,life under such conditions is          
inconceivable1 unless full recognition  
be accorded to the fact that conscious  
states interpermeate4  ,if each state   
fall outside the other1 and             
consciousness be a chain of successive  
ideas or emotions1 a twofold nature     
within the one experience is            
meaningless4 ,the view of conscious     
states as discrete leads inevitably to  
determinism4  ,the place of one state in
 the chain is conditioned by its        
predecessor4  ,there is no room for the 
spontaneity and the creative power which
 characterise conscious life4           
,associationism cannot countenance the  
unforeseen and incalculable4  ,so it is 
out of sympathy with ,christian         
psychology4  ,a function of the divine  
in ,christ is to introduce the element  
of the unforeseen and incalculable into 
,his normal and human experience4  ,the 
,bergsonian psychology thus supplies an 
intellectual basis for belief in the    
possibility of two natures in ,christ4  

,when ideas are regarded as psychic     
entities whose essential property is    
mutual penetration1 the ground is       
prepared for the catholic formula4      
,where this truth is not recognised1    
there arises inevitably the tendency to 
assert that ,christ had and must have   
had but one uniform level of experience1
 and that assertion is the essence of   
monophysitism4    ,,bergson',s ,,theory 
,,of ,,deep-,,seated ,,and ,,superficial
 ,,states  ,bergson's psychology throws 
further light on a central doctrine of  
catholic ,christology4  ,it not only    
makes conceivable1 as we have shown     
above1 the co-existence of the two      
natures1 but it lends support to the    
belief in the independent reality of    
,his personality4  ,person and nature of
 ,christology find their modern         
equivalents in the ,bergsonian          
deep-seated and superficial states of   
consciousness4  ,bergson draws a sharp  
line of distinction between these two4  
,the deep-seated states constitute the  

kernel of being4  ,they are the man's   
existence turned inwards4  ,they are    
independent1 free1 creative4  ,they are 
a unifying force4  ,always present1 they
 only rarely make their presence felt4  
,only at moments of deep experience do  
they interfere with the surface self4   
,the superficial states form the        
outward-regarding existence of man4     
,they represent consciousness relaxed   
into moments of clock-time1 moments more
 or less external to one another4  ,they
 are not truly free4 ,they are          
conditioned by the material environment4
  ,whatever be thought of the metaphysic
 of this system1 recognition cannot be  
refused to that part of it which rests  
on the solid foundation of psychological
 fact4 ,self-analysis discloses a       
two-fold experience in man4  ,the stream
 of his life contains both current and  
undercurrent4  ,the current is nature1  
the under-current personality4          
,,monophysitism ,,annuls ,,the          
,,distinction ,,between ,,divine        

,,person ,,and ,,divine ,,nature  ,this 
distinction is of paramount importance  
in ,christology4  ,diphysites hold fast 
to the distinction4  ,they maintain a   
human nature in ,christ1 but they do not
 humanise ,his person4  ,the person     
cannot be humanised4 ,it remained divine
 after the incarnation1 as it was       
before4  ,though ,he became man1 the    
depth of ,his being was unchanged4  ,the
 rain from heaven and the waters from   
the earthly spring mingle in one stream1
 but beneath the surface the deep       
undercurrent of being flows on          
unchanged4 ,the monophysite in effect   
abandons this distinction4  ,this is    
where his psychology is most seriously  
at fault4  ,he confuses person and      
nature4 ,deep-seated and superficial    
states of soul are all one to him4  ,he 
does not see the duality in the being of
 his fellow-men2 so he cannot see it in 
the ideal man4  ,this is a consequence  
of monophysitism which has not attracted
 the attention of theologians1 and which

 the monophysite himself did not intend4
  ,the doctrine that rules out the human
 nature of ,christ rules out the divine 
nature also1 by confusing it with the   
personality4  ,the monophysite affirms  
the divine nature while denying the     
human4  ,such affirmation is purely     
verbal4  ,it is completely void of      
significance4  ,the contrast between the
 divine and human natures is needed to  
throw personality into relief4  ,take   
away the human nature1 and that contrast
 disappears1 and with it goes the       
distinction between divine person and   
divine nature4  ,then1 instead of a     
transcendent personality in whose       
portrait divine and human features are  
distinctly limned1 we have a blur4      
,where ,god planned a unique though     
intelligible psychic harmony1 we find a 
psychic medley4    ,,consciousness ,,of 
,,personality ,,produced ,,by ,a        
,,violent ,,change ,,of ,,occupation    
,this assertion is justified by an      
appeal to human experience4  ,men become

 sure of their own or of other people's 
personality by experiencing strong      
contrasts of natures in themselves or by
 observing them in others4  ,for        
instance1 a sudden and violent change of
 occupation establishes personality as a
 distinct entity4  ,the civilian turns  
soldier4  ,almost immediately all parts 
of his nature are affected4  ,he feels  
the development1 as it were1 of a second
 nature within him4  ,his faculties are 
transformed4  ,he enters a new universe 
of thought4  ,his range of knowledge    
narrows in one direction1 widens in     
another4  ,his volitional nature is     
altered4  ,his will narrows in scope1   
but increases in intensity4  ,nor does  
his emotional nature escape the change4 
,aesthetic values are reversed4  ,he no 
longer feels pleasure and pain at the   
old objects4  ,physical desires play a  
much larger part in his life1 and he    
loses taste for intellectual pleasures4 
,the soldier returns to civilian life   
and1 as it were1 with his civilian      

attire he resumes his former nature1 and
 all his old thoughts and feelings and  
impulses come flooding back4  ,such an  
experience is of considerable           
psychological interest4  ,it exemplifies
 the interpenetration of different      
states of thought and activity4  ,the   
contrasts bring home to a man the fact  
that his spirit is a synthesis of       
heterogeneous elements4  ,they force him
 back on himself4  ,they rouse in him   
the dormant sense of personal being4    
,it is the apprehension of strong       
contrast in his experience of himself1  
the apprehension of the plurality of his
 being1 that accentuates the deep-lying 
unity4  ,the more violent the change in 
the walks of life1 the clearer becomes  
the concept of the continuity4          
,civilian or soldier1 the man1 the      
person is the same4  ,personality is    
thrown into relief not only by change of
 occupation1 but also by moral          
contrasts4  ,conflicting passions1      
opposing motives and internal debate    

serve to make a man realise himself4    
,strong personalities are often those in
 whom the conflict between good and evil
 is most acute4  ,it is the very        
opposition of natures which brings out  
the personal element into the full light
 of conscious recognition4  ,we must now
 examine human personality in greater   
detail2 we must indicate its functions  
and show how it differs from human      
nature4  ,only by coming to grips with  
this psychological problem is it        
possible to appreciate the points at    
issue in the ,christological question   
and to judge between catholic and       
monophysite4    ,,kant ,,and ,,the      
,,dual ,,character ,,of ,,the ,,ego     
,kant distinguished the noumenal from   
the phenomenal ego4  ,the former he     
regarded as an idea1 the latter as a    
reality in time4  ,the distinction      
corresponds roughly to that between     
person and nature4  ,the phenomenal ego 
is the nature of man4  ,it bears the    
brunt of the struggle of life4 ,the     

noumenal ego is the transcendent        
personality of the individual--an idea  
which pure reason necessarily forms and 
which practical reason establishes4     
,though the ,kantian philosophy no      
longer carries conviction1 it is        
interesting to see that ,kant felt and  
admitted a double current in man's      
being4  ,he recognised that the         
superficial self is not the true being  
of the man4  ,it is not necessary1      
however1 to go as far as ,kant went4    
,we need not with him relegate the core 
of personal being to the realm of idea4 
,granted that personality is not part of
 our normal experience as nature is1    
there are times when the depths of being
 are stirred4  ,moments of crisis drive 
a man deeper than will and thought and  
even feeling1 and make him conscious of 
himself as a psychic unity1 permanent   
and of infinite value4  ,personality    
normally remains in the recesses of the 
subconscious4  ,it is the hidden basis  
of life4  ,it is active1 though its     

activities are for the most part        
underground4  ,it does not1 however1 lie
 altogether outside the ken of          
consciousness4  ,it may be experienced2 
it is experienced when great emotion    
rends the surface fabric of the man and 
discloses the true self4    ,,human     
,,personality ,,and ,,human ,,nature    
,what is human personality8  ,it is a   
psychic entity whose most important     
function is to unify the parts of a     
man's nature4  ,it is the principle of  
unity and the instrument of unity4  ,a  
man's thought1 will and feeling are     
distinct and real entities4  ,his       
intelligence takes various forms from   
perception to abstract thought2 it may  
be directed to outward things1 to       
thoughts of things1 or to pure idea4    
,he wills many things1 and wills them in
 different modes and with varying       
degrees of intensity4  ,a wide range of 
feeling is found in him1 from physical  
to mental1 from organic to ideal        
feeling4  ,his nature is tripartite4    

,each part admits of variation in itself
 and in its interaction with the other  
parts4  ,each of the three expresses the
 man at the moment4  ,no one of the     
three gives the whole account of his    
being4  ,nor do the three taken         
together4  ,though his nature is        
tripartite the man himself cannot be    
resolved into component parts4  ,he has 
his faculties and states1 but he is more
 than their sum4  ,he may lose himself  
in thought or activity1 or abandon      
himself to feeling1 but when he is      
fulfilling his true function1 when he is
 most himself1 all parts of his nature  
are concentrated to a point4  ,partial  
activity of thought1 will1 or feeling is
 then replaced by activity of the       
personality4  ,personality is the       
synthetic unity of all parts of a man's 
nature4  ,it has the wonderful power of 
compressing to a point a medley of      
psychic elements4  ,moods and memories1 
perceptions and ideas1 wishes and       
purposes1 it tensions them all up1      

merges them and expresses them in       
characteristic acts representative of   
the man4  ,personality differs from     
nature also in respect of relation to   
environment4  ,it is relatively         
independent of circumstances4  ,habit   
and education mould the nature1 but if  
they touch the person they do so only   
indirectly4  ,the nature must be deeply 
affected before a change in the person  
is registered4  ,personality is not     
synonomous with inherited disposition2  
but it bears a similar relation to      
nature as inherited disposition does to 
acquired habit4  ,it is to nature what  
character is to action4  ,it is to      
nature what in ,weismann's theory the   
germ plasm is to the somatic cell4      
,changes in it are mediated by nature   
and are almost imperceptible in a life  
time4  ,again1 nature is the superficies
 of the soul4  ,it is the part that     
comes in contact with the world of      
things and people4  ,a man's nature is  
what he is for other people2 what he is 

in and for himself alone is personality4
  ,there is a substance or              
self-existence of the psychic states4   
,thought1 will and feeling have all and 
each an external reference4  ,the       
internal reference of the whole is the  
core of being4 ,our perception of       
personality in other people is a subtle 
thing4  ,in the ordinary give and take  
of life we are not aware of it4  ,it is 
when we realise the subject as a        
self-existent unity that we recognise   
personality4  ,we judge a man's nature  
by his thought or will or feelings as   
conveyed through the ordinary channels  
of communication4 ,personality is felt4 
,it is a magnetism that influences1 but 
remains inarticulate4  ,person and      
nature differ also in respect of        
relation to the body4  ,the co-existence
 of heterogeneous natures in the same   
body is a fact of experience4           
,different universes of thought1        
different levels of will and feeling can
 be lodged in one organism4  ,the higher

 the development of the individual1 the 
more clearly marked is the duality or   
plurality of nature4  ,it is otherwise  
with personality4  ,in normal cases no  
two personalities can tenant the one    
body4  ,the unity of the organism is the
 outward expression and guarantee of the
 unity of the person4  ,there are of    
course pathological cases which form    
exceptions to this rule4 ,such cases1   
however1 only serve to emphasise the    
distinction between person and nature4  
,in cases of dual personality the       
occupancy of the one body is not        
simultaneous4  ,jekyll alternates with  
,hyde4  ,dual personality is a totally  
different phenomenon from duality of    
nature4 ,duality of nature is relatively
 superficial4  ,in dual personality the 
divergence in mental and moral outlook  
is so radical that responsibility for   
the acts of the one entity cannot attach
 to the other entity4  ,personality then
 is the synthetic principle in man's    
being4  ,psychology reveals it as       

unifying the parts of a man's soul and  
welding into an indivisible whole the   
various elements of conscious and       
subconscious experience4  ,the student  
of ,christology welcomes this account of
 personality1 but he requires more4  ,he
 seeks a parallel for the union of two  
whole and perfect natures4  ,he demands 
some reason for holding the central     
dogma of the incarnation to be          
intelligible and probable4 ,the next    
step in the argument accordingly is to  
ask1 ,why limit the synthetic power of  
personality8  ,if personality can       
synthesise parts of a nature1 why should
 it not also synthesise natures8  ,if   
human personality can unify such        
heterogeneous psychic elements as       
thought1 will and feeling1 and present  
them as a harmonious whole1 is it not   
credible that divine personality should 
carry the synthesis a step further and  
harmonise in one being the thoughts1    
wills and feelings of ,god and man8     
,the hypostatic union of natures in     

,christ is a phenomenon not             
psychologically improbable1 and one     
which can be paralleled from human      
experience4  ,there is in man what is   
tantamount to a conjunction of the two  
natures4  ,man is rather diphysite than 
monophysite4  ,we pointed out above the 
extensive modifications that can be     
produced in a man's nature by           
environment4  ,there is in him a deeper 
duality which we can only characterise  
as an association of divine and human4  
,man is an inhabitant of the earth1 of  
earthly descent and finite destiny2 yet 
the divine is not totally foreign to    
him4  ,he has hopes of heaven1 moments  
of supraconsciousness1 at times vision1 
resolve and emotion that are            
supra-normal4  ,the divine is an element
 in him4  ,it is more than an aspect of 
his nature4  ,its influence operates    
often in opposition to the human        
element4  ,he is1 as ,bergson puts it1  
at the meeting-point of the upward and  
the downward currents4  ,he can know    

,god1 can do the will of ,god1 can be   
filled with the love of ,god4  ,here are
 the three factors of his nature1 raised
 to a higher power4  ,his experience may
 lie and often does lie on two planes4  
,he is double lived in regions new4  ,in
 applying this human analogy to the     
ideal man caution is necessary4 ,the    
duality of natures is a fact in both    
cases1 but there is one essential       
difference4  ,the personal substratum of
 the natures in one case is human1 in   
the other case divine4  ,in man the     
divine element is part of his nature1   
but not part of his person4  ,the ego   
remains human through all spiritual     
development4  ,the best of saints is a  
saint at the best4  ,the secondary      
element in him is a fact1 but it is part
 of his nature1 not of his person4  ,it 
is otherwise in the case of ,christ4 ,he
 came from the ideal world and returned 
there4  ,the background of his          
experience was and is divine4  ,the     
secondary element in ,him was the human1

 the primary the divine4  ,he shared    
man's experience and shared it really1  
but it did not form part of the core of 
,his being4  ,when ,he thought or willed
 or felt as a man1 it was a knsis1 a    
limiting of his natural mode of         
self-expression4  ,divine and human are 
both present in the experience of       
,christ and of mankind1 but with this   
difference--man rises to the divine2    
,christ condescended to the human4      
,,value ,,of ,,bergson',s ,,psychology  
,,to ,,orthodox ,,christology  ,person  
and nature are then real and distinct   
psychic entities4  ,they are real alike 
in ,god and man4  ,the distinction      
between them is not artificial or       
verbal2 it is perhaps elusive1 but it is
 genuine and capable of proof from      
experience4  ,the synthetic faculty of  
personality manifests itself in uniting 
without confusing1 first1 parts of the  
nature1 second1 entire natures4  ,these 
theses supply what is requisite for an  
intelligent appreciation of             

,christology4  ,without them            
,christology is a battle of shadows2    
with them it becomes a practical problem
 of first importance for religious      
minds4  ,the psychology which justifies 
orthodox ,christology is that which     
proclaims the interpenetration of       
psychic states1 and which distinguishes 
between the surface states of a relaxed 
consciousness1 and the deep-seated      
states which are ever present1 but of   
which we are conscious only at moments  
of tension4  ,the catholic mind         
conceives the person of ,christ as an   
eternal self-existent synthetic unity   
that has combined in an indissoluble    
union the natures of ,god and man4      
,human parallels make intelligible the  
co-existence of the two natures in the  
one person and the one body4 ,what is   
normal in man is surely possible in the 
ideal man4  ,heretical ,christologies   
err in their psychology4  ,in ,nestorian
 ,christology ,christ is presented as a 
dual personality1 an abnormal           

association in one body of two distinct 
self-existent beings4  ,thus a          
pathological case would be elevated to  
the rank of mankind's ideal4  ,the      
monophysite psychology plunges men into 
the opposite error4  ,an                
undiscriminating craving for unity among
 the phenomena of psychic life prevents 
any recognition of the dual character of
 experience4  ,monophysitism is blind to
 the difference between person and      
nature because it places all psychic    
experiences on the one level4           
,determined to find unity in its ideal1 
it seeks an inappropriate unity1 the    
mathematical unity1 the unity that      
excludes plurality4  ,to the monophysite
 the major part of the gospels is a     
sealed book1 because the major part of  
the facts there recorded about ,christ  
could not possibly have happened to a   
one-natured ,christ4 ,his human         
knowledge1 normal1 limited1 progressive1
 ,his human will1 natural1 adequate to  
the human1 inadequate to the superhuman 

task1 his human feelings1 his body      
consubstantial with ours are to the     
monophysite merely shadows or symbols or
 aspects of something greater4 ,they are
 dwarfed into nothingness4  ,they are   
lost in the divine omniscience1         
omnipotence and transcendent love4      
,,chapter ,,vi  ,,monophysitism ,,in    
,,the ,,present ,,day  ,to believe      
rightly the incarnation of our ,lord    
,jesus ,christ is an ideal that the     
thoughtful ,christian strives to attain4
  ,he expects to find the solution of   
high moral and speculative problems in  
that union of divine and human4  ,the   
right faith is not easily reached4  ,it 
is an elusive prize4  ,there are        
conditions moral and intellectual       
attaching to its possession4  ,the moral
 conditions may take a lifetime to      
fulfil4 ,even on its intellectual side  
faith is a long process4  ,no sudden    
mental grasp of the whole truth can be  
attained4  ,it dawns on the mind        
gradually4  ,the discipline of faith in 

the incarnation consists in a gradual   
and laborious advance from stage to     
stage4  ,the various stages are         
half-truths or inadequate conceptions of
 ,christ4  ,they are objectified in the 
,christological heresies4  ,these       
heresies arrange themselves in a        
sequence so strict and so logical that  
one could almost say that they are      
deducible a priori from the concept     
divine-human4 ,certainly the subjective 
fancies of the heresiarchs do not       
provide the whole account4  ,there is   
something of the universal in these     
heresies4 ,they are in the main current 
of religious thought4  ,as the chief    
historic systems of philosophy repeat   
themselves in each generation and in the
 intellectual development of individual 
thinkers1 so do the ,christological     
heresies recur4  ,there is considerable 
truth in ,hegel's contentions that the  
development of a man's mind is one with 
that of the general consciousness1 that 
the individual reason is a miniature of 

the universal reason1 that in fact the  
history of a philosopher's thinking is  
an abstract of the history of           
philosophy4  ,the same holds good in the
 field of religious thought4  ,without  
much artificiality1 without forcing the 
facts1 a rational scheme of the         
,christological heresies might be drawn 
up4  ,they might be pictorially         
represented as the rungs of a ladder1   
which the truth-seeking mind scales rung
 by rung1 pausing at the lower phases of
 ,christological thought1 and then      
resuming the ascent till the highest    
truth is attained4  ,the instrument of  
thought is much the same in all         
centuries2 the objects of thought vary  
very little2 so it is intelligible that 
the products of speculative and         
religious thought should remain the same
 to-day as in the fifth century4        
,,the ,,existence ,,of ,,modern         
,,monophysitism  ,is there such a thing 
as modern monophysitism8  ,to this      
question the preceding paragraph        

supplies the answer1 ,there must be4    
,heretical tendencies will be found in  
the ,christian community in every       
generation1 and the religious thought of
 individual ,christians will pass       
through heretical phases4  ,such heresy 
is rather an intellectual than a moral  
fault2 but the possibility of being the 
heirs1 without knowing it1 of the       
opinions of ,nestorius and ,eutyches    
throws on thinkers to-day the           
responsibility of examining their       
,christological beliefs and of testing  
them by the canon of orthodoxy4  ,not a 
few leaders of religious thought1 in    
intention orthodox1 in fact remain      
monophysites1 through inability to      
analyse their beliefs or through a false
 sense of security1 founded on the      
opinion that the age of heresy is past4 
,it is commonly supposed that belief in 
the deity of ,christ constitutes        
,christianity4  ,that supposition is    
wrong4  ,arius was not the only         
heresiarch4  ,to transcend the ,arian   

standpoint is only the first step in the
 long discipline of faith4  ,there are  
other heresies1 other half-truths       
scarcely less pernicious than the       
,arian4  ,the recognition of ,christ as 
,god represents a great intellectual and
 moral advance1 and is the first        
essential step in religion2 but to rest 
content with the taking of that step is 
to remain on the lowest rung of the     
ladder of faith4  ,it is little use to  
form a lofty conception of ,christ1 if  
in doing so we insulate ,him from the   
world of things and souls4  ,that is    
what monophysitism does1 and because    
disguised monophysitism is prevalent in 
the church to-day1 ,christianity's grip 
is weak and the fire of devotion low4   
,we may picture faith as a battlefield4 
,doubt is the enemy entrenched in depth4
  ,arianism holds the first line of     
trenches4  ,echeloned behind ,arianism  
are the other heresies in a network of  
fortified redoubts1 strong points and   
support trenches4  ,the church militant 

must make the furthest line her         
objective4  ,if her advance stays at an 
intermediate point1 she is exposed to   
cross-fire from the support trenches of 
the subsidiary heresies4  ,the ground   
gained by the first assault proves      
untenable4  ,the position won can only  
be secured by pushing home the attack to
 the final objective and consolidating  
her line there in the might of full     
catholic doctrine4  ,a thorough and     
systematic advance of this sort was made
 by the orthodox ,christologians of the 
fifth century4  ,the campaign was fought
 and won then4  ,it has1 however1 to be 
fought anew in each generation and in   
the experience of individual thinkers4  
,monophysitism is commonly regarded as a
 vagary of oriental thought1 killed once
 and for all by a church council in the 
fifth century4  ,that is a superficial  
view4 ,monophysitism is a hydra growth1 
and no ,hercules can be found to        
exterminate it4  ,it reappears in each  
succeeding age1 in ,west as well as     

,east4  ,the structure of the human     
intellect is such that1 whenever men    
begin to investigate the being of       
,christ1 the tendency to regard ,him as 
one-natured is present4  ,the church of 
the fifth century exposed that doctrine2
 it was beyond her power to kill it4    
,,reasons ,,for ,,the ,,prevalence ,,of 
,,monophysitism  ,monophysitism is in   
our midst undetected to-day4  ,it is not
 hard to account for its prevalence4    
,the clergy are for the most part unable
 to expound ,christology1 and the laity 
are impatient of exposition4 ,anything  
savouring of precise theology is at a   
discount4  ,so pulpit and pew conspire  
to foster the growth of the tares4  ,the
 ,athanasian creed is in disrepute1 and 
its statement of dogmatic ,christology  
is involved in the discredit attaching  
to the damnatory clauses4  ,the clergy  
are perhaps rather glad to leave the    
subject alone4  ,they know it is a      
difficult subject1 and they are afraid  
of burning their fingers4  ,the laity   

rarely hear any reference to the two    
natures of ,christ4  ,if they do1 they  
are not interested2 they do not think   
that the question makes any difference  
to faith or practice4  ,the whole extent
 of the ,christological knowledge       
possessed by the average churchman is   
comprised in the formula1 ,christ is    
,god and man4  ,he cannot apply the     
formula nor reconcile it with common    
sense4  ,he occasionally hears from the 
pulpit the phrase ,god-man2 but it is a 
mere phrase to him2 it is not translated
 for him into a language that he can    
understand4  ,so he registers the       
doctrine mentally as an impenetrable    
mystery and gives it no further         
attention1 or perhaps turns away in     
disgust from the system whose central   
figure is so unintelligibly presented by
 its authorised exponents4  ,the bare   
statement that ,christ is ,god and man1 
though true1 is not adequate4  ,it      
carries no conviction to thinking minds 
to-day4 ,the full definition of the     

council of ,chalcedon should be         
published broadcast1 and so studied by  
theologians in the light of modern      
psychology that they can present it as a
 reasonable dogma1 intelligible to-day  
and touching modern life4  ,in the      
absence of such teaching the spread of  
false1 unbalanced or inadequate         
conceptions of what ,christ was and of  
what ,he is is inevitable4  ,our concern
 here is to exhibit those of a          
monophysite character4  ,monophysite    
tendencies of the present day may be    
grouped according as they affect        
,christ's being or ,his work or         
,christian practice4  ,we propose to    
take them in that order4    ,,modern    
,,presentations ,,of ,,christ ,,esoteric
 ,,and ,,deficient ,,in ,,personal      
,,appeal  ,monophysitism in respect of  
,christ's being shows itself to-day in  
negative rather than positive ways4  ,to
 its subtle influence is traceable the  
capital defect of modern presentations  
of ,christ1 namely1 that they make no   

appeal to the outsider4  ,christ is     
proclaimed as the solution of moral1    
social and industrial problems4  ,as a  
rule in such cases the name ,christ is  
used as a synonym for ,christian        
principles4 ,such appeals are addressed 
to the head2 they do not touch the heart
 and fire the imagination2 they do not  
kindle that personal devotion to the    
,man ,christ ,jesus which has always    
been the dynamic of the faith4  ,the    
historic ,christ is not presented in a  
way that would appeal to the            
unconvinced4  ,christian teaching is    
becoming more and more esoteric4 ,in the
 language of ,christology1 a diphysite  
,christ is not preached4 ,his human     
nature is kept in the background4  ,it  
is not portrayed in arresting colours4  
,if the apostles and apostolic men had  
preached the impersonal redeemer of     
modern religious thought1 they would    
never have won the world for ,christ4   
,their imaginations and lives were fired
 by contact with a ,man of flesh and    

blood4  ,so they presented a ,christ    
whose true humanity appealed to ,his    
fellow-men4  ,they showed the gospel    
picture to an unbelieving world1 and the
 world responded to its appeal4  ,it is 
not easy to bridge the centuries and    
regain the apostles' standpoint1 but    
until it is done the church's message   
will lack inspiration4  ,the phrase the 
historic ,christ is commonly used1 as if
 it covered the whole ground4  ,it is   
certainly serviceable as a protest      
against a bare logos theory of the      
incarnation1 but in itself it is not    
adequate4  ,what requires emphasis is   
the humanity of the historic ,christ4   
,many ,christian teachers purposely     
withhold this emphasis from fear of     
playing into the hands of ,arians and   
,nestorians4  ,no doubt if pressed they 
would give intellectual assent to the   
dogma of the two natures1 but they      
shrink from following it out to its     
consequences4 ,there is a widespread    
feeling that it is irreverent to dwell  

on the fact that ,christ was a real man4
  ,a firm grasp of catholic ,christology
 in its entirety is the cure for this   
squeamishness4  ,to obscure the fact of 
,his ,manhood is not the true reply to a
 denial of ,his ,deity4  ,a true        
presentation of ,christ must give full  
weight to the facts that ,he had a human
 body1 human mind1 human feelings and   
human will1 that ,his body was in space 
normally subject to physical law1 that  
,his consciousness and subconsciousness 
conformed to psychic law4  ,wherever a  
denial of these facts is found1 there is
 monophysitism4  ,wherever they are     
obscured or neglected1 there are        
monophysite tendencies4                 
,,indifference ,,to ,,christ',s         
,,sufferings--,a ,,classical            
,,comparison  ,failure to appreciate the
 real humanity of ,christ's life results
 in comparative indifference to the     
tragedy of ,his death4  ,monophysitism  
in undermining belief in the reality of 
,christ's manhood is weakening sympathy 

with ,his sufferings4  ,calvary like    
,bethlehem has lost much of its appeal4 
,a classical comparison will illustrate 
this fact4  ,plato's account of         
,socrates' last hour in the prison and  
of his drinking the hemlock is1 ,i      
imagine1 to many educated men far more  
moving than the story of the ,passion   
and ,death of ,christ4  ,there is a     
curious similarity in the two tragedies 
that invites attention and comparison4  
,both sufferers were heroes and moral   
reformers1 the victims of mistaken zeal 
on the part of religious authority4     
,socrates died in a ripe age with his   
life work accomplished4  ,jesus was cut 
off in ,his prime4 ,socrates' last hours
 were tranquil and his passing quick and
 easy4 ,jesus after shame and torture   
died a lingering death4  ,the           
dysthanasia of ,jesus should1 one would 
opine1 make a stronger appeal to men's  
sympathies than does the euthanasia of  
,socrates4  ,yet on the whole the       
reverse is the case4  ,the difference in

 the respective styles of the two       
narratives does not give the whole      
explanation4  ,it is true that the      
,phaedo is a work of fine art while the 
gospel story is a plain statement of    
fact4  ,the reason1 however1 for the    
difference in appeal goes deeper than   
literary style4  ,the reader of the     
,phaedo puts himself into the place of  
,socrates and suffers with him4  ,as we 
read the ,passion of ,christ there rises
 a barrier between us and the divine    
sufferer4  ,unconsciously we say to     
ourselves1 ,christ suffered1 of course1 
but ,he did not suffer as we should have
 suffered in ,his place4 ,his were not  
the real sufferings of a real man4  ,if 
the passion of ,christ and that of      
,socrates were weighed in the same      
balances1 there would be less           
indifference to-day to the gospel story4
 ,were ,christ the ,man realised as     
such1 visualised1 as other great men of 
history are visualised1 among his       
followers1 the hero worship that        

inspired the early church would revive4 
,what makes ,christians indifferent to  
,christ's sufferings is not the lapse of
 centuries nor weakness of imagination  
but a subconscious monophysitism4       
,there is to most minds a haze of       
unreality overhanging the accounts of   
,his life and death4  ,they forget that 
,he shared human experience to the full4
  ,they think of ,him as doing things   
rhids like the ,homeric gods4  ,in point
 of fact1 ,his great results were       
achieved only after long laborious      
exertion4  ,his was a life of strenuous 
human activity1 physical and mental4    
,even ,his miracles were accompanied by 
a physical throb of sympathy2 virtue    
went out of ,him4  ,redemption made it  
necessary4  ,enthusiastic devotion to a 
person must be grounded in community of 
experience4  ,it is the human touches in
 the drama of ,christ's life that make  
the most powerful appeal to mankind4    
,yet the human element is obscured1 as a
 rule1 in modern presentations of the   

gospel4  ,for spiritual minds it is     
comparatively easy to apprehend a divine
 ,christ4  ,to apprehend a human ,christ
 makes a larger call on their           
imagination and their sympathy4         
,spiritual men are naturally monophysite
 in their thinking4  ,they shrink from  
the mental effort that diphysitism      
demands4  ,their attention is focussed  
on ,christ's superiority to human       
limitations4  ,they scarcely see the    
miracle of the human1 and thus they miss
 the import of the divine miracle4  ,in 
the atmosphere of monophysitism         
mysticism thrives1 but devotion decays4 
,we may instance the almost total       
disappearance of the crusading spirit4  
,the ,christ to whom our thoughts       
usually turn is an omnipresent ideal    
with no historical or local             
associations4  ,his birth-place and ,his
 country evoke only a lukewarm          
sentiment4  ,the church's year is       
neglected4  ,the historical facts of    
,christ's life are often regarded as of 

only minor importance4  ,piety used to  
consist in personal loyalty to the      
,founder of a universal religion2 it is 
now considered synonymous with obedience
 to the golden rule4    ,,to ,,attribute
 ,,omniscience ,,to ,,christ',s ,,human 
,,nature ,,is ,,monophysitism  ,within  
recent times the question as to the     
limitation of ,christ's knowledge was   
hotly debated4  ,that debate showed how 
much uncertainty on ,christological     
questions exists and how strong         
monophysite opinion still is4  ,in spite
 of ,christ's own dicta1 in spite of the
 dogma of two natures1 denial of the    
limitation was widespread and           
persistent4 ,to many devout minds it    
seems impious to speak of ,christ's     
ignorance4 ,this is a case in which the 
,chalcedonian definition is an          
invaluable guide4  ,if one brings to an 
examination of ,christ's nature the     
preconceived notion of ,his omniscience1
 the doctrine of the limitation of ,his 
knowledge seems an outrage on belief2   

but if one approaches the question with 
the orthodox formula in mind1 one is    
prepared to find that ,his cognitive    
faculties were perfectly human and      
humanly perfect4 ,so we find it4  ,his  
knowledge and ,his faculties of         
knowledge on the lower plane of ,his    
experience were essentially the same as 
ours4  ,he thought in our categories4   
,he used our organon1 perfect of its    
kind1 but still a human organon4  ,as   
man1 inevitably1 ,he had thoughts       
uncognised2 and such a mental state we  
call ignorance4  ,his mind passed       
through stages of development as ours   
does4  ,education widened ,his horizon1 
strengthened ,his faculties1 and        
increased ,his knowledge4 ,advance in   
knowledge implies a prior state of      
relative ignorance4  ,the word ignorance
 as applied to ,christ sounds very      
terrible2 but investigation of its      
meaning robs it of its terrors4  ,we use
 the word in two senses4  ,on the one   
hand it may mean the absence of a       

thought1 its absolute non-presence in   
consciousness4  ,on the other it may    
mean thought unrelated to experience1   
one whose implications are not or cannot
 be fully deduced1 in fact1 the         
incomplete cognition of an idea4 ,in    
neither case does it involve            
imperfection in the instrument or moral 
fault4  ,on the contrary ignorance is a 
mark of the normal in cognition4 ,if    
ignorance and limitation of knowledge   
were not found in ,christ1 we should be 
forced to agree with ,apollinaris that  
the divine ,logos had superseded ,his   
human intellect4  ,ignorance in so far  
as it is a positive attribute is far    
from being a mark of imperfection4  ,it 
is a true paradox that ignorance like   
obliviscence forms part of the process  
of human cognising4  ,probably in the   
truth of things memory is of the essence
 of mind4  ,thoughts naturally and      
spontaneously reproduce themselves4     
,the past of experience tends           
automatically to carry forward into the 

present4  ,the function of the brain    
then1 or of a mental faculty intimately 
co-operating with the brain is to       
discriminate1 to sift and select1 to    
prolong into present consciousness what 
is of importance for action and to      
relegate the irrelevant to partial or   
total oblivion4  ,from this             
psychological standpoint ignorance and  
obliviscence are seen to be achievements
 of the intellect4  ,the presence of all
 facts in a human consciousness is      
unthinkable4  ,if it were possible1 it  
would paralyse action4  ,if we exempt   
,christ from the law of ignorance and   
obliviscence1 we ipso facto dehumanise  
his cognition4  ,when we say that ,jesus
 was ignorant of much scientific truth1 
or that his prescience was limited1 we  
do not compromise ,his dignity4  ,we    
simply assert the naturalness of ,his   
intellect and the true humanity of that 
element of ,his nature4  ,to do         
otherwise1 to claim omniscience for ,his
 human intellect is gross monophysitism4

  ,his knowledge was deeper1 surer1 more
 penetrating than ours1 because the     
light of ,his divine intuition streamed 
through the veil of sense and illumined 
the lower phases of intelligence4  ,this
 is an instance of the communicatio     
idiomatum4  ,the properties of the two  
natures act and react upon one another4 
,but we must make the distinction of    
natures our starting-point1 or fusion   
will take place4  ,there must be        
idiomata first1 or the communicatio is  
meaningless4    ,,the ,,present         
,,existence ,,of ,,christ',s ,,human    
,,nature  ,the view taken of the ,christ
 of the past necessarily affects belief 
in the ,christ of the present4  ,it is  
scarcely possible to realise the present
 existence of a human ,christ1 unless   
the fact of ,his actual human existence 
in the first century of our era be      
grasped4  ,if ,he had but one nature on 
earth1 ,he has but one nature now in    
heaven4  ,if the historic ,christ was   
monophysite1 so also is the ,christ to  

whom we pray4 ,in this consequence      
consists the seriousness of modern      
monophysitism4 ,the present reality of  
,his human nature is to-day even among  
,his followers doubted1 obscured1 or    
forgotten4  ,christ is to many spiritual
 minds merely an ideal personality1 a   
summary of their own ethical ideals4    
,they perhaps regard ,him as a          
disembodied spirit or mysterious        
influence4  ,they rarely attain the     
catholic standpoint and see the human   
nature as a psychic entity actually     
existent to-day4  ,at any rate the      
doctrine is not thought out to its      
consequences4  ,the perpetual           
intercession is1 it is feared1 little   
more than a phrase4  ,that ,christ as   
man still intercedes for men is a verity
 not understood and only half           
appreciated4  ,yet the official doctrine
 of orthodoxy teaches that there is a   
full and true continuity of existence   
between the ,christ of ,galilee and the 
,christ to whom we pray4  ,the ,church  

teaches that there is somewhere1 in some
 transcendent form of existence1 a being
 with perfect human mind1 whose will in 
strength and scope is perfectly         
proportioned to ,his knowledge1 whose   
feelings are in perfect mutual harmony1 
whose psychic nature finds outward      
expression in a glorified body2 that    
this perfect being once walked this     
earth1 and yet had and has the ground of
 ,his being in a divine personality4    
,such a ,christ the latent monophysitism
 of our thinking hides from our view4   
,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,subjective      
,,redemption ,,due ,,to ,,monophysitism 
,the doctrines of ,christ's person and  
of ,his work are intimately associated4 
,what ,he did depended on what ,he was4 
,christology and ,soteriology act and   
react upon each other4  ,if ,christology
 is crippled1 ,soteriology goes lame4   
,christ takes ,his stand in the centre  
of the cosmic process in virtue of ,his 
unique being4  ,in that ,he unites deity
 and humanity in ,his own person1 ,he   

brought redemption within the reach of  
mankind4  ,his redemption of humanity   
was as definite a fact as ,his          
assumption of human nature4  ,both to   
the ,christian are objective historical 
facts2 if either of them falls to the   
ground1 so does the other2 and with that
 collapse goes the purpose of creation  
and humanity's hope4  ,a docetic        
interpretation of the human nature      
entails a docetic view of redemption4   
,monophysitism1 as we have seen1 casts  
doubts upon the reality of the          
sufferings and humanity of ,christ2 in  
so doing it compromises the work ,he    
accomplished4  ,atonement ceases to be a
 cosmic transaction completed on        
,calvary1 and becomes a subjective      
process4  ,redemption is made into an   
attitude1 or rather a change of         
attitude1 on the part of the individual4
  ,that ,christ wrought a power and hope
 for man which man could not achieve for
 himself is not a familiar doctrine     
to-day4  ,pain1 not sin1 is the great   

modern problem4 ,the ,cross is made to  
stand for sympathy1 not for             
satisfaction4 ,salvation1 achieved at a 
definite moment of history and conferred
 on believers of subsequent generations1
 rests for its foundations on the       
objective assumption of human nature by 
a divine person4  ,if the foundations be
 undermined1 as monophysitism undermines
 them1 the superstructure crumbles4     
,redemption becomes improvement by      
effort and self-help1 or a constant     
endeavour after a private ideal of      
conduct4    ,,monophysitism ,,limits    
,,the ,,scope ,,of ,,redemption         
,monophysitism shows itself also in the 
modern tendency to narrow the scope of  
redemption4  ,partial salvation is      
offered as a substitute for the         
salvation of the entire man4  ,this     
tendency is a natural result of         
narrowing the import of the incarnation4
  ,it runs counter to orthodox          
,christology and the derivate doctrines4
  ,a divine economy is traceable in     

,god's dealings with men2 there is      
nothing purposeless1 nothing otiose in  
,god's dispensation4  ,the ,church's    
invariable answer to the ,apollinarians 
was grounded in belief in this economy4 
,she argued that ,christ could not      
redeem what ,he did not assume1 and1    
conversely1 that what ,he assumed ,he   
redeemed4  ,he assumed human nature in  
its entirety1 thought1 will1 feeling and
 body2 therefore not one of those       
elements of human nature lies outside   
the scope of redemption4  ,monophysitism
 excludes some or all of those elements 
from the being of the incarnate ,christ1
 and by so doing deprives the           
corresponding elements in man's nature  
of their rightful share in the benefit  
of redemption4  ,the feeling that some  
parts of human nature are more fitted to
 survive than others is wide-spread     
to-day4  ,it is found within as well as 
without the ,church4  ,we constantly    
read of the survival factor4  ,the term 
implies the belief that at death part of

 the man's nature survives and part     
perishes4  ,there is1 however1 no       
general agreement as to which part      
constitutes the survival factor4  ,the  
intellectualist pins his faith to the   
immortality of the reason4  ,he is      
content to let death deprive him of     
everything except the logical faculty4  
,for the aesthete beauty alone is       
eternal1 and his hope for the future    
lies in the continuance of his aesthetic
 sense4  ,the materialist sees          
permanence only in the indestructibility
 of the ultimate physical constituents  
of his body4  ,the epigenesis of a      
spiritual body lies outside his horizon4
 ,the volitionist finds all the value of
 life in the moral nature4  ,for him the
 good will persists when all else is    
resolved into nothingness4 ,character   
alone1 he says1 survives the shock of   
death4  ,all these limited views of     
survival are symptoms of monophysite    
ways of thinking4 ,the ,christian1 on   
the contrary1 holds that what is        

redeemed eo ipso survives4  ,whatever   
else is involved in redemption          
persistence certainly is included4      
,monophysitism stands for a partial     
redemption2 but to the orthodox who     
believe that ,christ assumed human      
nature in its entirety1 each part and   
the whole are of infinite value4  ,he   
holds that the strengthening1 purifying1
 and perfecting that salvation brings   
apply to the psychic and the physical   
natures1 that no part is exempt1 that   
neither intellect nor will nor feeling  
ceases with death1 that the range of    
reason will be increased1 and its       
operation made more sure1 that lofty and
 sustained endeavour will replace the   
transient energy of the earthly will1   
that feeling will be enhanced1          
harmonised1 and purified1 that a        
spiritual body continuous with the body 
of the flesh will express man's heavenly
 experience4  ,these high far-reaching  
hopes rest on the doctrines of catholic 
,christology4  ,christ assumed our      

nature complete in body and psychic     
parts4  ,he did so with a purpose1 and  
that purpose could be none other than   
the redemption of the body and of all   
the psychic elements4  ,to the mystic1  
body and human activities may seem only 
transient and unworthy of a place in    
heaven4 ,such is false spirituality4    
,it is contrary to the tenor of catholic
 teaching4  ,the incarnation brought    
divine and human together on earth4 ,the
 resurrection fixed their union4  ,the  
ascension gave humanity an eternal place
 among eternal things4                  
,,monophysitism ,,shown ,,in ,,the      
,,modern ,,tendency ,,to ,,make ,,the   
,,death ,,of ,,christ ,a ,,secondary    
,,factor ,,in ,,the ,,scheme ,,of       
,,redemption  ,we have seen above that  
monophysitism discredits the reality of 
,christ's sufferings4  ,dogmatic reasons
 apart1 the monophysite is motived by a 
repugnance to physical pain and by a    
wish to exclude it from the experience  
of the human ideal4  ,to this motive we 

can trace the modern tendency to        
transfer the doctrinal centre of gravity
 from the ,passion to the incarnation4  
,the ,passion and ,death used to occupy 
the first place in the thoughts of      
,christians and formed the foundation   
for all theories of atonement4  ,the    
incarnation was regarded as1 for the    
purposes of dogma1 subsidiary4  ,within 
recent times the position has been      
reversed4  ,the main stress falls now on
 the incarnation4  ,the ,passion seems  
of secondary importance1 if1 as modern  
theology often teaches1 all purposes of 
redemption were secured prior to it4    
,in thus changing the venue of          
redemption modern theology is wrong4    
,the mistake is prompted largely1 so it 
seems to the writer1 by monophysitism   
latent in modern religious thought2 at  
any rate strict adherence to the        
catholic doctrine of two natures would  
have prevented it4  ,the human nature   
that ,christ assumed had to be perfected
 through suffering2 otherwise it could  

not attain that universality and        
representative character which enabled  
it to become the medium of universal    
salvation4 ,if it had been enough for   
the divine spirit to mingle with men1 to
 show them a pattern life1 and to touch 
them to higher things1 an apparition    
would have been adequate1 and no        
community of suffering would have been  
necessary4  ,since ,christ not only     
appeared as man1 but experienced in ,his
 flesh all man's experiences1 death     
which is the climax of human experience 
fell to ,his lot and set the seal to the
 divine enterprise4 ,since ,he who died 
was the flesh and blood embodiment of   
the cosmic relation4  ,his death has    
cosmic significance4  ,the doctrinal    
edifice in which ,calvary is of         
ornamental and not of structural value  
has monophysitism for its foundation4   
,,historical ,,character ,,of           
,,christianity ,,obscured  ,christ's    
mission is misunderstood to-day as well 
as ,his cosmic work4 ,in certain        

religious quarters where zeal is not    
balanced by learning1 ,his mission as   
the founder of a religious society is   
forgotten4  ,to those who are deficient 
in historic sense the continuity of the 
,church down the centuries seems        
unimportant1 and institutional religion 
a hindrance rather than a help to the   
spiritual life of the individual        
,christian4  ,pietism of this kind has  
always been present in the church2      
to-day it is prevalent4  ,it nominally  
associates its piety with the historic  
,christ1 but actually it worships an    
ideal constructed by its own ethical    
imagination4  ,such pietists            
spiritualise the faith4  ,the facts of  
the historic creed are to them little   
more than symbols of religious truth4   
,spiritual resurrection1 spiritual      
ascension are the only miracles for     
them4  ,this tendency to spiritualise   
everything is a phase of monophysitism4 
,it results from losing sight of the    
person of the historic ,christ1 and     

resolving ,his assumption of human      
nature into the assumption of a title4  
,,christology ,a ,,determinant ,,of     
,,sacramental ,,thought  ,errors in     
sacramental teaching necessarily        
accompany misconceptions of the person  
of ,christ4  ,the incarnation is a      
cosmic sacrament1 the meeting-point of  
divine and human1 and the sacraments of 
the church are types of the vaster      
mystery4  ,in both type and antitype it 
is all important to give due weight to  
divine and human1 and not to exalt one  
element at the expense of the other4    
,those who undervalue the human nature  
of ,christ are disposed to undervalue   
the outward sign in the sacraments4     
,not appreciating the hypostatic union  
of divine with human1 they misunderstand
 the sacramental union of the same      
elements4 ,blind to the significance of 
,christ's humanity in the economy of    
redemption1 they fail to see how matter 
can be the channel of sacramental grace4
  ,yet the discipline of faith is the   

same in both cases4  ,the ,christian    
enterprise is not merely to believe in  
the divine1 but to believe in the divine
 manifested in the human4  ,there are   
two divergent1 almost opposing1 schools 
of sacramental teaching1 both of which  
have inherited the spirit of            
monophysitism4 ,both are instances of   
sacramental monism4  ,first1 there are  
those who identify the outward signs and
 the inward grace2 second1 those to whom
 the inward grace is everything and the 
outward sign nothing4  ,both schools of 
thought destroy the nature of a         
sacrament4  ,the radical error of both  
consists in undervaluing the human and  
material4  ,in the first case the error 
takes the form of the transubstantiation
 doctrine1 which is exactly parallel to 
the extreme form of ,eutychianism4      
,according to ,eutyches1 the human      
nature of ,christ was absorbed into the 
divine and lost there2 the truth of ,his
 being was the divine personality2 the  
human element was only an appearance4   

,similarly the transubstantiation theory
 conceives the mutation of the substance
 of the material elements and the loss  
of their proper nature2 the appearance  
of reality that the accidents possess is
 an illusion of the senses4  ,we may    
note in passing that the opposite error 
to transubstantiation finds its         
,christological parallel in             
,nestorianism4 ,socinianism which       
separates symbol from sacramental grace 
is sacramental dualism1 as ,nestorianism
 is ,christological dualism4  ,both     
abandon a vital unity of divine and     
human4  ,the pietistic or mystical view 
of the sacraments does so too1 but in a 
different way4  ,this second form of    
sacramental monism has much in common   
with the doctrine of one nature4  ,to   
the pietist the divine seems all        
important1 and the material no help1 but
 rather a hindrance to the spiritual    
life4  ,the faith of the individual to  
him is the seat of the efficacy of the  
sacraments2 he regards matter as unreal 

if not sinful1 and in either case       
unworthy to be a channel of divine      
grace4  ,echo after echo of monophysite 
thought can be caught here4  ,the surest
 way to combat sacramental errors on    
both sides is a clear and definite      
statement of the catholic doctrine of   
,christology4    ,,need ,,of ,a ,,mental
 ,,reconstruction ,,of ,,the ,,human    
,,nature ,,of ,,christ  ,as the interval
 of time widens1 separating ,christians 
from the human life of their ,god1 the  
more urgent becomes the obligation to   
put forth a constructive effort of the  
historical imagination4  ,the attempt to
 keep that memory green grows harder and
 harder as the centuries pass2 but      
,christians must make it2 otherwise the 
historical character of their religion  
will perish4  ,there need be no fear    
that the interests of spiritual religion
 will suffer4  ,amongst moderns the     
danger of idealising the human is       
greater than that of humanising the     
divine4  ,an intelligent appreciation of

 ,christ's human life draws out love and
 kindles reverence towards the divine   
personality who condescended to the     
level of mankind4  ,we may point by way 
of illustration to the effect of        
biblical criticism4  ,christians of a   
previous generation dreaded the touch of
 criticism4  ,they thought it           
profanation4  ,they refused to admit any
 human element in the bible4            
,criticism1 however1 had its way4       
,bibliolatry had to go4  ,the result is 
that the bible is a living book to us   
to-day4  ,in spite of the fears of the  
devout there was little to lose and much
 to gain by recognising the human       
element in the bible4  ,as with the     
written word1 so with the living ,word4 
,without a recognition of the human     
element in ,his being1 a full           
assimilation of ,his teaching and an    
intimate perception of ,his real        
presence are unattainable4  ,if this    
recognition be accorded1 the great past 
will live again in the present4         

,hostile critics study the life and     
character of ,christ and the records of 
them with a view to proving that ,he was
 merely man4  ,believers may adopt their
 method with a different object4  ,they 
may undertake the same study in order to
 comprehend the wonder of the ,man1 and 
so rise to some conception of the wonder
 of the ,god4  ,the gospels are read    
mainly as a handbook of devotion2 they  
should be studied as the biography of a 
hero4  ,the face-value of its incidents 
is often neglected1 while the reader    
seeks allegorical and mystical          
interpretations4  ,to form a mental     
picture of ,christ in ,his environment1 
to read ourselves back into ,his world  
and then into ,his ways of thought1 such
 efforts are more than ever needed      
to-day1 and they are more than ever     
absent4  ,historic sense and imagination
 should be allowed to play upon the     
recorded acts and sayings of ,jesus1    
until a great temple to ,his memory     
rises in the high places of the mind1   

dominating thence the whole intellectual
 and moral life4  ,such an enterprise   
would infuse life and meaning into the  
,christological formula1 and would      
effect1 so to speak1 a reconstruction of
 the human nature of the historic       
,christ4  ,the ,christian's attitude    
towards the ,man ,christ ,jesus is the  
acid test of the sincerity of his faith4
  ,no one can bring intellectual        
difficulties to a being to whom         
cognising was a foreign process1 nor    
moral difficulties to one who knew no   
conflict of wills1 nor sorrows to one   
all breathing human passion far above4  
,if we picture the ideal of all mankind 
as thinking our thoughts1 willing as we 
will1 feeling as we feel1 we are united 
to ,him by an intellectual1 moral and   
emotional bond of sympathy4  ,such a    
threefold cord is not quickly broken4   
,communion with such a ,being leads the 
worshipper to the heart of the          
,christian religion4     ,,the ,,end    
,,printed ,,by ,,william ,,clowes ,,and 

,,sons1 ,,limited1 ,,london ,,and       
,,beccles4