initial commit of ebook 30219HEADmain

9 files changed, 11729 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/30219-8.txt b/30219-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..16b8153
--- /dev/null
+++ b/30219-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,3698 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Monophysitism Past and Present, by A. A. Luce
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Monophysitism Past and Present
+       A Study in Christology
+
+Author: A. A. Luce
+
+Release Date: December 1, 2009 [EBook #30219]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MONOPHYSITISM PAST AND PRESENT ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Al Haines
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM
+
+PAST AND PRESENT
+
+
+A STUDY IN CHRISTOLOGY
+
+
+
+BY
+
+A. A. LUCE, M.C., D.D.
+
+
+CAPTAIN LATE 12TH ROYAL IRISH RIFLES
+
+FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN
+
+
+
+
+
+LONDON
+
+SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE
+
+NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN CO.
+
+1920
+
+
+
+
+PRINTED BY
+
+WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
+
+LONDON AND BECCLES
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+CHAPTER
+
+   I.  THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+  II.  THE ORIGINS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+ III.  MONOPHYSITE DOCTRINE
+  IV.  THE ETHOS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+   V.  MONOPHYSITISM AND MODERN PSYCHOLOGY
+  VI.  MONOPHYSITISM IN THE PRESENT DAY
+
+
+
+
+BOOKS CONSULTED IN THE
+
+PREPARATION OF THIS ESSAY
+
+
+J. S. ASSEMANI, "Bibliotheca Orientalis," especially the Introductory
+Dissertation to Vol. II.
+
+A. HARNACK, "History of Dogma," translated by Speirs and Millar.
+
+J. C. ROBERTSON, "History of the Christian Church."
+
+WINDELBAND, "History of Philosophy," translated by Tufts.
+
+WRIGHT, "Short History of Syriac Literature."
+
+H. BERGSON, "Les données immédiates de la conscience," "Matière et
+Mémoire," "L'évolution créatrice."
+
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM PAST AND PRESENT
+
+
+CHAPTER I
+
+THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+
+Monophysitism was a Christological heresy of the fifth century.  It was
+condemned by the church in the middle of that century at the council of
+Chalcedon.  Surviving its condemnation it flourished in the East for
+several centuries.  Its adherents formed themselves into a powerful
+church with orders and succession of their own.  Although the
+monophysite church has long since lost all influence, it is still in
+being.  The Coptic and Jacobite churches of Egypt and Mesopotamia,
+respectively, preserve to this day the doctrines and traditions of the
+primitive monophysites.
+
+The history of the sect, however, does not concern us here.  The
+writer's purpose is to review its doctrine.  Monophysitism is a system
+of religious thought, and, as such, its importance is out of all
+proportion to the present or even the past position of the churches
+that professed it.  Its significance lies in its universality.  It is
+grounded in the nature of the human mind.  It is found in West as well
+as East, to-day as well as in the early centuries of our era.  Wherever
+men bring intellect to bear on the problem of Christ's being, the
+tendency to regard Him as monophysite is present.
+
+An examination of the heresy is of practical value.  Our subject-matter
+is not an oriental antique or a curiosity of the intellect, but a
+present-day problem of vital moment to the Faith.  If we are concerned
+with a half-forgotten heresy, it is because a study of that heresy
+serves both as a preventive against error and as an introduction to the
+truth.  The doctor studies disease to ascertain the conditions of
+health; pathological cases are often his surest guide to the normal;
+just so the study of heresy is the best guide to orthodox Christology.
+It was in conflict with monophysitism that the church of the fifth
+century brought to completion her dogmatic utterances about Christ; and
+the individual thinker to-day can gain the surest grasp of true
+Christology by examining the monophysite perversion.
+
+With this practical purpose in view, we now proceed to an analysis of
+the heresy.  Monophysitism is a body of doctrine.  It is a dogmatic
+system, in which the individual dogmata are controlled by a principle
+or dominant idea.  As all the particular doctrines of monophysitism
+depend on this principle, and, as it is not properly a theological
+concept, but one borrowed from philosophy, we may call it "the
+metaphysical basis of monophysitism."  An intelligent grasp of this
+basic principle is necessary to an appreciation of the whole system.
+Accordingly, our first concern is to ascertain and exhibit this
+metaphysical basis.  In subsequent chapters we shall analyse in detail
+the doctrines specifically monophysite and trace the Christological
+errors back to their source in metaphysic.
+
+
+
+THE _A PRIORI_ AND _A POSTERIORI_ IN CHRISTOLOGY
+
+The following considerations prove the necessity of this procedure.
+Two methods of examining the being of Christ can be distinguished.
+According to the one method the facts of His life are reviewed as they
+are presented in the New Testament, and a formula is then constructed
+to fit them.  The other method starts from the concept of a mediator
+between God and man.  It supposes that concept actualised, and asks the
+question, "Of what nature must such a mediator be?"  These methods may
+be distinguished, but they cannot be separated.  No one, however
+scientific, can come to a study of the life of Jesus with an absolutely
+open mind.  Presuppositions are inevitable.  Similarly, as the _a
+priori_ thinker develops his concept of a mediator, he compares the
+results of his thinking at every stage with the picture presented in
+the Gospel story, and that picture unavoidably modifies his deductions.
+Both diphysite and monophysite used a combination of these two methods.
+Each party took the recorded facts and interpreted them in accordance
+with their notion of what a mediator should be.  Both parties studied
+the same facts; but the _a priori_ of their thought differed, and so
+their conclusions differed.  In the realm of Christology this _a
+priori_ of thought is of paramount importance.  Preconceived opinions
+inevitably colour our mental picture of Christ.  Readers of the Gospel
+narrative find there the Christ they are prepared to find.  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 rests.  That philosophy supplies the _a priori_, or the
+presupposition, or the metaphysical basis, whichever name we prefer.
+
+We do not suggest that theologians have consciously adopted a
+metaphysical principle as the basis of their beliefs, and then have
+applied it to the special problem of Christology.  That is a possible
+method but not the usual one.  In most cases the philosophic basis
+remains in the background of consciousness; its existence is
+unrecognised and its influence undetected.  If Christian thinkers took
+the trouble to analyse the basis of their beliefs about Christ, they
+would not halt, as they so often do, at the stage of monophysitism.  If
+they laid bare to the foundations the structure of their faith, the
+danger of error would be reduced to a minimum.  Viewed from the
+standpoint of timeless reason, monophysitism is based on a definite
+metaphysical idea.  Not all monophysites have consciously adopted that
+basis; many, had they recognised its presence, would have rejected it.
+But it was present as a tendency.  A tendency may be neutralised by
+counteracting causes; but it has its effect, and sooner or later it
+will produce positive results.
+
+
+
+THE THREE TYPICAL CHRISTOLOGIES
+
+The same truth holds of the other Christological systems.  A different
+metaphysical idea lies at the root of each.  Nestorian, monophysite,
+catholic, these three were the main types of Christologian in the fifth
+century.  Each studied Christ's life.  After studying it, the Nestorian
+said of Him, "There are two persons here."  "Not so," said the
+monophysite, "I see but one incarnate nature of God the Word."  The
+catholic replied, "You are both wrong; there is one person in two
+natures."  All three types deserve close study.  The thinkers were
+devout and sincere, and, for the most part, able men.  There is no
+question here of superficial uninformed thought, nor of moral
+obliquity.  The disagreement was due not to their vision but to their
+view point, not to the object of their thought or the process of their
+thinking, but to their different presuppositions and starting points.
+
+Presented in this way the monophysite and other Christological
+controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries become phases of the
+cosmic problem.  They thus regain the dignity which is theirs by right,
+and which they lose in the ordinary church histories.  The heat of
+passion they aroused becomes intelligible.  It was no battle about
+words.  The stakes were high.  The controversialists championed
+far-reaching principles with a decisive influence on the course of
+thought and conduct.  Unfriendly critics usually portray the
+Christologians as narrow-minded and audacious.  So, no doubt, they
+were, but they were not wrong-headed.  If the matters in dispute
+between theist, deist, and pantheist are trivialities, then and then
+only can we regard the enterprise of the Christologians as chimerical
+and their achievements as futile.  The different formulae represented
+attitudes of mind fundamentally opposed.  No peace between catholic and
+monophysite was possible.  They had conflicting conceptions of ultimate
+truth.
+
+
+
+DEPENDENCE OF CHRISTOLOGY ON PHILOSOPHY
+
+We mentioned above the two other chief Christological systems, the
+Nestorian and the catholic.  No analysis of monophysitism which omitted
+a reference to these systems would be complete.  They were three nearly
+contemporary attempts to solve the same problem.  The comparison is of
+special interest when, as here, fundamental principles are under
+examination.  It demonstrates the closeness of the connection between
+the Christological and the cosmic problems.  In each of the three cases
+we find that a school of philosophy corresponds to the school of
+theology, and that the philosopher's dominant idea about the cosmos
+decided the theologian's interpretation of Christ.
+
+This connection between philosophy and Christology is of early date.
+From the nature of both disciplines it had to be.  Even in apostolic
+days the meaning of the incarnation was realised.  Christ was
+apprehended as a being of more than national or terrestrial importance.
+The Pauline and Johannine Christologies gave cosmic significance to His
+work, and so inevitably to His Person.  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 Stoics.  That is to say, He
+stands not only between God and man, but between Creator and creation.
+He is the embodiment of the cosmic relation.  From early days, then,
+philosophy and religion were working at the same problem; their paths
+met at the one goal of the Ideal Person who satisfied both head and
+heart.  The systematic Christology of the fifth century was, therefore,
+a completion of the work begun in the first.
+
+
+
+THE CHRISTOLOGICAL AND THE COSMIC PROBLEMS
+
+The essence of the Christological problem is the question as to the
+union of natures in Christ.  Are there two natures divine and human in
+Him?  Is each distinct from the other and from the person?  Is the
+distinction conceptual or actual?  The incarnation is a union.  Is it a
+real union?  If so, what did it unite?  We have seen that such
+questions cannot be approached without presuppositions.  What these
+presuppositions shall be is decided in the sphere of a wider problem.
+This wider problem is known as the cosmic problem.  The solution given
+to it prescribes the presuppositions of any attempt to solve the
+specialised problem.  We shall proceed to sketch the cosmic problem,
+and to indicate the three main types of answers given to it.  It will
+then be evident that these three answers find their respective
+counterparts in the Nestorian, monophysite and the catholic solutions
+of the Christological problem.
+
+As man's intellectual powers mature, two supreme generalisations force
+themselves on his consciousness.  He conceives his experience as a
+whole and calls it the world; he conceives the basis of his experience
+as a whole and calls it God.  To some minds the world, to some minds
+God, is the greater reality; but both concepts are present in varying
+proportions wherever thought becomes self-conscious.  Here we have in
+its lowest terms the material for the ontological question, the first
+and the last problem of philosophy.  God and the world, at first dimly
+conceived and scarcely differentiated, gradually separate and take
+shape in the mind as distinct entities.  The concepts become
+principles, fixed by language and mental imagery.  The gulf between
+them widens until they stand at opposite poles of thought.  In their
+isolation they constitute a standing challenge to the mind of man.  If
+he thinks the world in terms of time, he must postulate a creator.  If
+he thinks the world out of time, he is forced to conceive a ground of
+the world's being.  The world cannot be thought without God nor God
+without the world.  The one necessitates the other.  Yet when the
+thinker tries to define the terms, he can at first only do so by
+negatives.  The world is what God is not, and God is what the world is
+not.  The two primary concepts thus attract and repel each other.  The
+mind's first task is to grasp them in their difference.  It cannot rest
+there, but must proceed to attempt to reunite them and grasp them in
+their unity.  Thus the main problem of philosophy is to conceive and
+find expression for the relation between God and the world.
+Christology attacks essentially the same problem.  Christology is an
+attempt to define the relation between God and the world in terms of
+personality.
+
+This relation has been conceived in three modes.  According to the
+level of thought reached, or, as led by their disposition and
+education, men have made their choice between three mediating concepts.
+Hence derive three divergent types of thought and three outlooks on
+life fundamentally opposed.  We shall take them in their logical
+sequence for convenience of treatment.  The historical connection is of
+no importance for our present purpose, but it is noteworthy that the
+time order both of the schools of philosophy and of the corresponding
+Christological systems follows approximately the logical order.
+
+
+
+THE FIRST SOLUTION OF THE COSMIC PROBLEM--DUALISM
+
+The first attempted solution of the cosmic problem is best expressed in
+the concept "co-existence."  God _and_ the world co-exist.  God is, and
+the world is; their relation is expressed by an "and."  "God and the
+world" is the truth, all that man can and need know.  This solution is
+verbal.  It leaves the problem more or less as it finds it.  The two
+principles remain ultimates; neither is reduced to the other.  God
+still stands outside the world and the world outside God.  Neither can
+explain the other.  This dualism is the lowest stage of ontological
+thought.  The thinker sees the problem, only to turn away from it.  He
+surmises that there is some relation between the two; but he cannot
+define it, and it remains ineffectual.  This was Plato's early
+standpoint.  He established the idea as the truth of the thing, but he
+failed to find expression for the relation between idea and ideate.  He
+took refuge in symbolical language, and spoke of the thing as a "copy"
+of the idea or as a "participant" in it.  But as there was no causation
+on the one side or dependence on the other side, all that the earlier
+Platonic philosophy achieved was in its ideal world to duplicate the
+real.  Plato's heaven simply co-exists with the world, and the relation
+between them is merely verbal.
+
+This metaphysical idea survived Plato and Plato's system, and passed
+into common currency.  It found and still finds expression in numerous
+speculative and practical systems.  In religious ontology we find it in
+deism.  According to the deist there was once at a definite point of
+time a relation between God and the world, the relation of creation.
+But, creation finished, the relation ceased.  In other words, God
+created the world, and then withdrew into Himself, leaving the world to
+work out its own salvation.  The deist believes in God; but his is a
+self-contained God, who does not interfere in the course of things or
+continue creating.  Such a conception of God is useless for religious
+purposes, because it represents Him as out of all relation with the
+world.
+
+
+
+CHRISTOLOGICAL DUALISM--NESTORIANISM
+
+The Christological counterpart of dualism and of deism is Nestorianism.
+The Nestorians halt at the lowest stage of Christological thought.
+They admit Christ to be the meeting-point of God and man, but they
+nullify the admission by introducing dualism into the person of Christ.
+They set out to find the solution of the cosmic problem in Christ; they
+endeavour to express the relation between God and the world in terms of
+His personality.  They bring the two concepts together, but they do not
+weld them.  Faith and courage fail them at the critical moment.  They
+substitute an association for a union.  They leave God and man
+co-existing in Christ, but not united there.
+
+Nestorianism is a halfway house on the road from Arianism to
+Christianity.  It is a weak compromise.  The deity in Christ is
+admitted, but its unity with humanity denied.  The divine remains
+external to the human nature.  According to the doctrine ascribed to
+Nestorius two persons, the son of God and the son of Mary, at the
+Baptism were mysteriously associated.  The union consists partly in
+identity of name, partly in the gradual deepening of the association.
+As Jesus grew in spiritual power and knowledge and obedience to the
+divine will, the union which at first was relative gradually deepened
+towards an absolute union.  Divinity was not His birthright, but
+acquired.  Thus throughout His life the two personalities remained
+external to one another.  The divine worked miracles; the human
+suffered.  The Nestorian could pride himself on having preserved the
+reality of the divine and the reality of the human; he could worship
+the one and imitate the other.  But his system was non-Christian,
+because it excludes the element of mediation.  A dual personality could
+never make atonement or redeem humanity.  God and man in Christ were
+brought into nominal contact, but there was provided no channel by
+which the divine virtue might pass into the human.  The Nestorian
+remains content with his solution, because the background of his
+thought is dualist.  The thinker's attitude to the cosmic problem
+decides his attitude to the Christological problem.  Content to couple
+God and the world by an "and," he similarly couples by an "and" the
+Logos and Jesus Christ.  Dividing God from the world, he divides
+Christ.  Abandoning metaphysical relation between the cosmic
+principles, he despairs of finding, or, rather, has no motive for
+seeking a personal relation between God and man in the being of Christ.
+
+
+
+SECOND SOLUTION OF THE COSMIC PROBLEM--MONISM
+
+The second solution given to the cosmic problem is of special
+importance for our thesis.  It had a direct influence on monophysitism,
+and may be regarded as supplying the metaphysical basis for that
+heresy.  It represents an advance to a higher stage of thought, just as
+monophysitism, which depends on it, is an advance on Nestorianism, and
+has always been regarded as a more venial heresy.
+
+The mind finding no satisfaction in dualism advances to monism.  The
+spectacle of two unrelated ultimate principles impels it to seek and,
+if necessary, to invent some mode of reconciling them.  Explain it as
+we may, the craving for unity, for synthesis, for mediation is radical
+in human thought.  The mind cannot rest at anything short of it.  God
+and the world, held asunder conceptually or only nominally united,
+constitute a contradiction _in excelsis_, and, as such, provide an
+irresistible motive for further and deeper thought.
+
+As is natural, the swing of the pendulum carries the mind to the
+opposite extreme.  Co-existence failing to supply the required
+solution, the key is sought in identity.  God and the world are thought
+as identical.  The terms are connected by the copula.  God _is_ the
+world, and the world _is_ God.  This is the truth of being, for the
+monist.  The two principles are merged in one, and the contradiction
+solved by an assertion of the identity of the contradictories.  Monism
+takes two forms.  It may be either materialist or spiritual.  One term
+must be selected as the reality, and the other written off as an
+illusion.  If the thinker's bent of mind be scientific, he is disposed
+to make the material world the only objective reality, and God becomes
+simply a working hypothesis or a creation of the subjective mind.  It
+would be beside our purpose to do more than mention this phase of
+monism.  Spiritual monism, however, requires lengthier treatment; it is
+of vital importance to our subject.  In this case the mind takes sides
+with God as against the world.  God is the reality and the world the
+illusion.  The world is God, in spite of appearances to the contrary.
+As world it has no substantive reality; it has no existence for self.
+It is the shadow of God, an emanation from Him, or an aspect of Him.
+Like dualism, monism is only a sham solution of the cosmic problem.  It
+fails to keep prominent the idea of relation.  A relation must relate.
+If its terms are merged, the relation falls to the ground.  A relation
+must be such that, while the terms are unified, they are preserved as
+realities.  It must both unify and keep distinct.  To abandon either
+God or the world is a counsel of despair.  To detract from the reality
+of either is treason to fact and tantamount to a shelving of the cosmic
+problem.
+
+
+
+PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL MONISM
+
+The systems that identify God and the world range from the crude
+materialism of Democritus to the lofty spiritualism of Plotinus.  Stoic
+cosmology occupies an intermediate position.  The Stoic was nominally a
+pantheist, but he seems to have oscillated between a spiritual and a
+materialist explanation of the universal being.  The monist system that
+prepared the soil for monophysitism and constantly fostered its growth
+was Neo-Platonism.  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 life.  The world and the human spirit,
+for Plotinus, were simply manifestations of God.  He taught that, as
+light issues from the sun and proceeds forth on its way, growing
+gradually dimmer till it passes into darkness, so the world of thought
+and thing has no true being apart from God, from whom it proceeded and
+to whom it returns.  Spiritual monism found in Alexandria a congenial
+home.  Blending there with oriental mysticism it produced a crop of
+gnostic speculative systems, in all of which Acosmism or a denial of
+the world was the keynote.  Whether the problem was conceived in terms
+of being or of value, the result was the same.  The world has no true
+being.  Its appearance of solidity is a sham.  It has no value.
+Compared with God, it is negligible.  It is but the shadow cast by the
+eternal sun.
+
+The monophysite tenets traceable to monism will be considered in detail
+in later chapters.  Here our concern is to show that monism supplies
+the metaphysical principle on which the heresy is based; that, as
+dualism provides the _a priori_ of Nestorian thought, monism provides
+the _a priori_ of monophysite thought.
+
+
+
+CHRISTOLOGICAL MONISM--MONOPHYSITISM
+
+The essential doctrine of monophysitism is the assertion of the
+absolute numerical unity of the person of Christ.  It carries to
+extremes its denial of the dual personality maintained by the
+Nestorians.  All vestiges of duality were banished from His being;
+there were not two persons: there were not even two natures.  There was
+in Christ only the one nature of God the Word.  The human nature at the
+incarnation was absorbed into the divine.  It no more has substantive
+existence than has the world in a pantheistic system.  This is monism
+in terms of personality.  Its presuppositions are those of a mind
+imbued with an all-powerful feeling for unity.  It is faced with the
+problem of reconciling God and the world in the person of Jesus Christ.
+It brings to that problem a prejudice against the real being and the
+real value of the world.  Hence it is led to draw the false conclusion
+that humanity, which is part of the world, is not a permanent element
+in the highest truth; that even perfect humanity, humanity
+representative of all that is noblest in the race, cannot be allowed
+true existence in the Ideal.
+
+Monism abandons the universal relation by abandoning one or other of
+the terms to be related.  Monophysitism cuts a similar knot in a
+similar fashion.  It jettisons redemption by excluding from the
+Redeemer all kinship with that which He came to redeem.  Nominally
+admitting human nature into union with deity, it destroys the reality
+of that transaction at a stroke by making the two natures identical.
+So the incarnation, for the monophysite, becomes a myth; no change in
+the nature of the Logos took place at it, and, consequently, no change
+in the nature of the Man Christ Jesus.
+
+We may trace the likeness between the cosmic and the Christological
+problems still further.  Monism is forced to attempt to give some
+account of the world's apparent reality.  Similarly monophysitism had
+to try to explain those facts of Christ's life which on the face of the
+Gospel narrative are human and normal.  The explanation offered is
+essentially the same in both systems.  The monist asserts that the
+world exists only in the mind of the thinker.  It is an illusion of the
+senses.  The duty of the philosopher is to overcome the illusion by
+turning away from the world of sense and fixing his mind on true being;
+by ascesis and contemplation he endeavours to attain the ecstatic
+state, in which the illusion of the world's reality disappears, and the
+potential identity of man with the universal spirit becomes actualised
+in experience.  Similarly, for the monophysite, the humanity of Christ
+was a creation of the senses.  Christ's body was a phantom, and His
+human mind simply an aspect of Him.  They were impressions left on the
+minds of His contemporaries.  Having no substantive existence, no
+reality in fact, they were to be ignored in Christological dogma.  They
+were not to be considered as part of the true Christ; they were not to
+be worshipped.  No spiritual value attached to them.  They were
+hindrances rather than helps to the religion that aimed at entire
+abandonment of self and absorption in the divine.
+
+
+
+THE THIRD SOLUTION OF THE COSMIC PROBLEM--IDENTITY IN DIFFERENCE
+
+We come now to the third and last solution of the cosmic problem.  As
+we develop it, we shall endeavour to show that it supplies that
+metaphysical idea which forms the basis of catholic Christology.  The
+two previous solutions failed.  They do not satisfy the philosopher and
+they mislead the theologian.  The one separates God from the world; the
+other merges them.  Thus both, in effect, abandon the original
+enterprise.  They destroy the relation instead of expressing it.  The
+concepts both of co-existence and of identity have proved fruitless in
+the speculative problem, and in Christology have given rise to heresy.
+The third school of thought takes as its starting point neither God,
+nor the world, nor the two as co-existing, but the relation of the two.
+It makes that relation such that the terms related are preserved in the
+relation.  Neither identity nor difference is the full truth, but
+identity in and through difference.  God is not the world, nor is the
+world God.  God is, and the world is.  Each are facts.  In their
+separateness they are not true facts.  It is only as we conceive the
+two in their oneness, a supra-numerical oneness, that we can give their
+full value to each.  The world is God's world; therefore it has being
+and value.  The cosmic relation then is expressed not by an "and," nor
+by an "is," but by an "of."  The God "_of_" the world is the key
+concept that unlocks the doors of the palace of truth.
+
+It was in the prominence given to this concept that Aristotle's system
+made a great advance on that of his predecessor.  Plato had established
+a world of ideas with the idea of the Good as its centre, but he left
+it unrelated to the world of experience.  Aristotle insisted on
+relating the ideal and the real.  His concept of relation was that of
+form and matter.  The world apart from God is matter apart from form.
+It has only potential reality.  When it becomes united to its form, it
+becomes actual.  Its form makes it a fact--what it has in it to be.
+Aristotle conceives different grades of being.  Unformed matter is the
+lowest of these grades, and God the highest.  Each grade supplies the
+matter of which the next highest grade is the form.  Ascending the
+scale of being at last we reach pure form.  Thus the ladder of
+development is constructed by which the world rises to its realisation
+in God.  Aristotle gave to humanity the conception of a God who
+transcends the world, and yet is immanent in it, as form is in matter.
+Thus Greek philosophy in Aristotle attained that spiritual monotheism
+which supplied the foundation for the edifice of Christian doctrine.
+
+The effect of Aristotle's teaching was felt by all the ecclesiastical
+parties in the fifth century.  As we shall see in a later chapter, some
+of the subsidiary elements of his philosophy are reflected in
+monophysitism.  The dominant ideas, however, of the system, the
+conception of God and the world and the relation between them, were
+taken over by the catholic theologians, and incorporated into their
+Christology.  We need not here inquire whether Aristotle's influence
+was direct or indirect.  No doubt many of the theologians who
+constructed Christian doctrine had read his works.  Whether that is so
+or not, they must have unconsciously assimilated his central doctrine.
+It was common property.  The determination to keep God a reality and
+the world a reality and yet relate the two became the controlling
+motive of their thinking.
+
+Aristotle in theory and application of theory has always a feeling for
+fact.  The individual thing and the world of individual things are, for
+him, never negligible.  Realised matter, life, the human spirit, human
+nature, are actualities and have their value as such.  They are not all
+on the same level of being; they do not occupy the same rank; and it is
+the philosopher's business to determine their respective positions in
+the scale of being and value.  But he cannot have his head in the
+clouds of contemplation, unless he have his feet on the earth of fact.
+
+
+
+THE ESSENCE OF CATHOLIC CHRISTOLOGY
+
+Catholic Christology has caught the spirit of Aristotle's teaching.  It
+is not primarily speculative.  It is in close touch with fact.  It is
+the outcome of a deep-felt want.  Redemption is the first demand of
+religious experience; so it is the motive and theme of all Christology.
+The soul views itself as a member of a world of souls estranged from
+God, and for its own peace and welfare seeks to effect a union between
+God and the world.  Such a union, to be effective, must preserve the
+being and value of the world.  If there were no world or only a
+valueless world, there would be nothing to redeem, or nothing worth
+redeeming.  Seeking that union in personality, and in the most
+marvellous personality of history, the orthodox theologians by a true
+instinct ascribed to Him both divine and human natures.  He is the
+cosmic unity of opposites.  His person is the cosmic relation.  In that
+person the lower term of the relation has true being and full value.
+Thus the Church steered a middle course between the Scylla of
+co-existence and the Charybdis of identity.
+
+These _a priori_ deductions as to the being of Christ were verified by
+a reference to fact.  The life-story of the historic Christ comprises
+two distinct groups of experience.  There are thoughts, deeds, and
+words attributed to Him that only God could have thought, done, and
+said.  There are as well thoughts, deeds and words of His that only a
+man could have thought, done and said.  Hence the diphysite doctrine
+was verified _a posteriori_.  Again, in both groups of experience there
+is a never-failing connecting link.  There is a unity lying deeper in
+His consciousness than the duality.  Christ, the Agent, is the same in
+both parts.  Whether as God or man, He is never out of character.
+Hence the unity of the person also was established _a posteriori_.
+Thus, to the orthodox Christologians, the expectation that the human
+Ideal would be a unity, comprising divinity and humanity, was justified
+by historical fact.
+
+They found a further verification on applying the test of practice.
+Orthodox Christology satisfies the requirements of the soul.  Man's
+chief spiritual need is access to God through "a daysman that might lay
+his hand upon both."  An exemplar, even though perfect, is not adequate
+to his need.  The _unio mystica_ can only be experienced by the
+leisured few.  Man demands a religion of redemption, a redemption that
+allows value to labour, to endeavour, to human thought, that recognises
+the reality of pain and sorrow and sin, a redemption that redeems
+humanity in all its phases and in the wealth of its experiences.  An
+Agent that has not shared to the full those experiences is useless for
+the purpose.  Redemption must be the work of One who knows God and
+knows man, of One who has the touch of sympathy; for to such a touch
+alone can humanity respond.  The Christology that makes Christ Jesus
+consubstantial with God and with man satisfies man's deep-felt need.
+
+
+
+SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER
+
+We have taken a triad of ontologies and a triad of Christological
+systems, placed them side by side, and examined them.  The result of
+that examination is a triple correspondence.  The metaphysical
+principle is found in each case worked out in a corresponding
+Christology.  The comparison is of general interest.  It reveals
+Christology as intimately connected with the workings of intellect, as
+in the main stream of the current of human thought, as capable of
+philosophic treatment.  Further than that, the comparison is vital to
+the main argument of this essay.  It provides the clue to the heart of
+our subject.  The scientist, who wishes to understand a botanical
+specimen, pays as much attention to what is in the ground as to what is
+above ground.  The seed and roots are as full of scientific interest as
+are stem, leaf and flower.  Similarly, to understand the monophysite
+heresy, to be able to detect it and expose it, we must take it in the
+germ.  We may push the illustration further.  The properties of a
+botanical specimen are best studied in connection with organisms of
+allied species.  We cannot isolate unless we compare.  By comparison
+the essential features, functions and properties of the specimen under
+examination are elucidated.
+
+It is by isolating the three germinal ideas of these three
+Christological systems and comparing them, that a full comprehension of
+monophysitism in all its stages, from seed to flower, is reached.  We
+have used this method, and have found that the roots of the heresy lie
+in spiritual monism.  In subsequent chapters we shall analyse its
+origins as a historical system, its specific tenets and its practical
+consequences.  It will then be seen that the spirit of monism pervades
+the whole system.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II
+
+THE ORIGINS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+
+The monophysitism of the fifth century had its roots in the past as
+well as in the _a priori_.  In the previous chapter we treated it as a
+phase of philosophic thought and reviewed the metaphysic on which the
+heresy rests.  In the present chapter its relations as a historical
+system of religious thought are to be exhibited.  As such, it owes much
+to outside influences.  Much in the monophysite mode of thought and
+many of its specific doctrines can be traced either to other
+ecclesiastical heresies or to pagan philosophies.  The fact of this
+double derivation deserves to be emphasised.  It refutes the charge of
+inquisitorial bigotry, so frequently levelled against the theologians
+of the early centuries.  The non-Christian affinities of the heresy
+account for the bitterness of the controversy to which it gave rise,
+and, in large measure, excuse the intolerance shown by both parties.
+Heresies were not domestic quarrels.  Contemporaries viewed them as
+involving a life and death struggle between believers and unbelievers.
+Christianity can afford to be tolerant to-day.  It has an assured
+position.  Its tenets are defined.  Christians can almost always
+distinguish at a glance errors that threaten the essentials of the
+Faith from those that do not.  In the fourth and fifth centuries the
+case was otherwise.  Christianity was then one among many conflicting
+systems of religion.  Its intellectual bases were as yet only
+imperfectly thought out.  Any doctrinal error seemed capable of
+poisoning the whole body of belief.  Heresy, so the orthodox held, was
+of the devil.  No charitable view of it was allowable.  That
+uncompromising attitude was, to a large extent, justified because many
+articles of the heretical creeds were of purely pagan origin.  Given
+similar conditions to-day, our easy tolerance of opinion would
+disappear.  If Islam, for instance, were to-day a serious menace to the
+Faith, Christians would automatically stiffen their attitude towards
+monophysite doctrines.  Toleration of the false Christology would,
+under those circumstances, be treason to the true.  The Church of the
+fifth century was menaced from many sides.  Monophysitism was the foe
+at her gates.  That heresy was not a variety of Christianity.  It was a
+semi-pagan theosophy, a product of Greek and oriental, as well as of
+purely Christian speculation; therefore it was anathema to the orthodox.
+
+
+
+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 character.  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 problem.
+
+The two primitive forms of doctrinal error, to which the Church, even
+in apostolic days, was exposed, were docetism and ebionitism.  These
+are the elemental heresies.  All the later Christological heresies are
+refinements of one or other of these two.  They constitute the extremes
+of Christological thought: between them runs the _via media_ of
+orthodoxy.  Each of the two sees but one aspect of the two-fold life of
+Christ.  Docetism lays an exclusive emphasis on His real divinity,
+ebionitism on His real humanity.  Each mistakes a half truth for a
+whole truth.
+
+The docetists denied that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh.  His
+body, they taught, was an apparition.  He ate and drank, but the
+physical frame received no sustenance.  He appeared to suffer, but felt
+no pain.  The reality behind the semblance was the divine spirit-being,
+who conjured up the illusion in order to elevate the thoughts of
+mankind.  This docetic theory commended itself to many of the Greek
+Christians.  They were familiar with the notion of "the gods coming
+down to them in the likeness of men."  Greek mythology abounds in
+instances of docetic incarnations.  The gods of the popular religion
+constantly assumed visible form during their temporary manifestations.
+
+The ebionites threatened the Faith from the opposite quarter.  They
+taught that Christ was real man and only man.  According to them, the
+whole value of His life and work lay in His moral teaching and His
+noble example; there is no mystery, no contact of divine and human in
+Christ; what He attained, we all may attain.  The ebionites were
+recruited from the Jewish element in the Church.  The rigid monotheism
+of the Jews made it hard for them to conceive an intermediary between
+God and man; they were naturally disposed to embrace a humanistic
+explanation of Christ.
+
+Docetism was elaborated by Valentinus, Manes and other gnostics and
+adopted into their systems, while ebionitism provided the basis for the
+Christologies of Paul of Samosata, of the Photinians and Adoptionists.
+In contact with these heresies orthodox beliefs, originally fluid,
+gradually hardened.  The dogma "Christus deus et homo" had from the
+beginning been held in the Church.  Its full implications were not
+realised and formulated until the conflict with error came.  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
+humanity.
+
+
+
+THE PROBLEM OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION
+
+The manner of the hypostatic union then became an urgent problem.  The
+Church of the fifth century was called upon to attempt a solution.  Any
+reading of the Gospels compelled the recognition of divine and human
+elements in Christ; but speculative theology found it difficult to
+reconcile that fact with the equally important fact of the unity of
+person.
+
+The theologians of the previous century had bequeathed little or no
+guidance.  The fifth-century Christologians were pioneers in an
+unmapped region.  Athanasius' great treatises on the incarnation are
+hardly more than eloquent defences of the true deity and true humanity
+of Christ.  They contain little or no constructive Christology.  Their
+theme is, _autòs enênthrópêsen_, _hína hêmeis theôpoiêthômen_.  He
+maintains the fact, but does not deal with the "how."  He uses the
+phrase "natural union" (_hénôsis physiké_), but does not attempt to
+define the mode of that union.
+
+
+
+APOLLINARIANISM
+
+Apollinaris was, as far as we know, the first theologian to approach
+this subject.  We may note in passing that, though he was bishop of
+Laodicea in Syria, Alexandria was his native place.  His father was an
+Alexandrian, and he himself had been a friend of Athanasius.  The fact
+of his connection with Alexandria deserves mention, because his
+doctrine reflects the ideas of the Alexandrian school of thought, not
+those of the Syrian.  Apollinaris set himself to attack the heretical
+view that there were two "Sons"--one before all time, the divine Logos,
+and one after the incarnation, Jesus Christ.  In doing so he felt
+constrained to formulate a theory of the union of natures.  He started
+from the Platonic division of human nature into three parts, rational
+soul, animal soul, and body.  He argued that in the statement "the
+Logos became flesh," "flesh" must mean animal soul and body.  He urged
+in proof that it would be absurd to suppose the Logos conditioned by
+human reason; that rational soul was the seat of personality, and that
+if it were associated with the Logos, it would be impossible to avoid
+recognising "two Sons."  He expressly asserted that the humanity of
+Christ was incomplete, contending that this very defect in the human
+nature made possible the unity of His person.  According to
+Apollinaris, then, the union was a composition.  The Logos superseded
+the human reason, and was thus united to body and animal soul.
+
+Apollinarianism was a form of docetism.  In ascribing imperfection to
+the human nature of Christ it _eo ipso_ denied its reality.
+Apollinaris, in fact, said of Christ's reason what the early docetists
+said of His body.  The system is more ingenious than convincing.  It is
+highly artificial.  It provides no intellectual basis for a living
+faith in an incarnate Christ.  The theory, however, was very
+influential in its day, and was intimately connected with the rise of
+monophysitism.  Eutyches, the "father of the monophysites," was
+condemned by a local synod at Constantinople in A.D. 448 on the ground
+that he was "affected by the heresy of Valentinus and Apollinaris."[1]
+Harnack goes so far as to say that "the whole position of the later
+monophysites, thought out to all its conceivable conclusions, is
+already to be found in Apollinaris."  Apollinarianism was condemned at
+the second general council, and there the Church made her first
+declaration, a negative one, on the subject of the hypostatic union.
+In conflict with the heresies which arose in the next two generations,
+she evolved a positive statement of the truth.
+
+
+
+THE NESTORIAN REACTION
+
+Opposition to Apollinarianism gave rise to the Nestorian heresy.  The
+original ebionitism had died away, but its spirit and central doctrine
+reappeared in Nestorianism.  Nestorianism might be described as
+ebionitism conforming to the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople.  The
+leaders of the opposition to the Apollinarists of the fifth century
+were their own Syrian countrymen whose headquarters was at Antioch.
+The Antiochians differed from the Apollinarians in the starting-point
+of their Christology and in the controlling motive of their thought.
+While Apollinaris had constructed his Christology on the basis of the
+doctrine of the Trinity, the Antiochians started from the formula
+"perfect alike in deity and humanity."  The reasonings of Apollinaris
+were governed by the thought of redemption.  The fundamental question
+of religion for him was, "How can the closest union between divine and
+human be secured?"  The tendency of the Antiochians, on the other hand,
+was to neglect the interests of Soteriology and to emphasize the
+ethical aspect of Christ's life and teaching.  They put in the
+background the idea of the all-creating, all-sustaining Logos, who took
+man's nature upon Him and in His person deified humanity.  Their
+thought centred on the historic Christ, the Christ of the evangelists.
+They did not revert to crude ebionitism, but they explained the Nicene
+creed from an ebionitic stand-point.  They maintained as against the
+Apollinarians the completeness of Christ's human nature; with equal
+vigour they maintained the essential deity of the Logos.  The "poverty"
+(ebionitism) of their doctrines consisted in their paltry view of the
+hypostatic union.  The union, according to the Nestorians, was
+subsequent to the conception of Jesus.  It was not a personal, but a
+moral union.  It was a conjunction of two co-ordinate entities.  They
+taught that the more the man Jesus acted in accordance with the divine
+promptings, the closer became his union with the Logos.  That is to
+say, the union was relative not absolute.  Thus the union between
+divine and human in Christ differed only in degree from the union of
+the same elements in any good man.  The unity of the Son of God and the
+Son of Mary consisted solely in the identity of name, honour and
+worship.
+
+
+
+CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA
+
+Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, led the opposition to Nestorius.  He
+declared that the moment of conception was the moment of the union, and
+that the notion of incarnation involved much more than an association
+of natures.  He maintained that the incarnation was a hypostatic union
+(_hénôsis physiké_).  He endeavoured to guard against an Apollinarian
+interpretation of his teaching; but in this attempt he was not
+altogether successful.  He asserted the perfection of Christ's humanity
+and the distinction between the two natures.  The perfection, however,
+is compromised, and the distinction rendered purely ideal by his
+further statement that there were "two natures before, but only one
+after the union."  He cited in proof the words of Athanasius, "one
+incarnate nature of God the Word."
+
+Cyril prevailed.  Nestorius was condemned and the Antiochian school
+discredited.  Cyril's victory, however, was of doubtful value to
+orthodoxy.  His ardent but unbalanced utterances bequeathed to the
+Church a legacy of strife.  His writings, particularly the earlier
+ones, furnished the monophysites with an armoury of weapons.  His
+teaching could not with justice be styled docetic or Apollinarian, but
+its mystic tone was so pronounced that it proved a propaedeutic for
+monophysitism.  The shibboleth of orthodoxy, quoted above, "one
+incarnate nature of God the Word," passed rapidly into the watchword of
+heresy.  Athanasius had used the word "nature" in a broad sense.  The
+monophysites narrowed it down to its later technical meaning.  Thus
+they exalted Christ into a region beyond the ken of mortal man.  The
+incarnation became a mystery pure and simple, unintelligible, calling
+for blind acceptance.  The monophysites, following Cyril, heightened
+the mystery, but, in doing so, they eliminated the reality and the
+human appeal of the incarnate life.  They soon began to argue that,
+since Christ is monophysite, the properties of deity and humanity in
+Him are interchangeable; that therefore, while yet a Babe in the
+manger, He ruled the world with the omniscience and omnipresence of the
+Logos; that while He hanged upon the Cross, His mighty power sustained
+and ordered the universe.  The monophysites professed great jealousy
+for the honour due to the Redeemer.  But the ascription of such
+attributes to Jesus Christ detracts from His honour.  If the nature
+that suffered on the Cross be not distinct from the nature that cannot
+suffer, then the Crucifixion was a sham.  Monophysitism is docetism
+elaborated.  It abandons the Christ of history.  It rules out His
+_prokopé_.  It ignores a fact, vital to Christology, namely the
+_kénôsis_ or divine self-limitation.  Thus it throws a veil of
+unreality over those facts on which the Christian Faith is built.
+
+
+
+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 currents.  A
+man's convictions are settled for him partly by acceptance, partly by
+rejection of what tradition offers or his mind evolves.  The mass mind
+works similarly.  It accepts and rejects, approves and disallows.  The
+stabilisation of a body of mass opinions, such as a heresy, is thus
+determined by opposite forces.  It was so with monophysitism.  Its
+Christian antecedents comprised positive and negative currents.  The
+positive current was docetism, the negative ebionitism.  Docetism,
+originating in apostolic times, passed through many phases, to provide,
+at the end of the fourth century, in its most refined form,
+Apollinarianism, the immediate positive cause of monophysitism.
+Ebionitism, related to docetism as realism to idealism, possessed equal
+vitality and equal adaptability.  It showed itself in various
+humanistic interpretations of Christ.  Of these the most elaborate was
+Nestorianism, which exerted the most insistent and immediate negative
+influence on the early growth of monophysitism.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM AND NON-CHRISTIAN THOUGHT
+
+We leave here the subject of the influence of other heresies on
+monophysitism, and proceed to exhibit its affinities with non-Christian
+thought.  At Alexandria, the home of the heresy, two systems of
+philosophy, the Aristotelian and the Neo-Platonist, were strongly
+represented.  Both of these philosophies exercised a profound influence
+upon the origins and upon the later developments of monophysite
+doctrine.  We propose to take, first, the Aristotelian, and then the
+Neo-Platonist philosophy, elucidating those leading ideas in each on
+which the monophysite thinker would naturally fasten, as lending
+intellectual support to his religious views.
+
+
+
+THE ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC
+
+Aristotle was held in high estimation by the monophysite leaders,
+particularly in the sixth and seventh centuries.  His works were
+translated into Syriac in the Jacobite schools.  The West owes much to
+these translations.  For it was largely by this agency that his
+metaphysic reached the Arabs, who transmitted it to the West in the
+Middle Ages.
+
+The Aristotelian logic was widely known among the monophysites.  It
+seems to have formed part of their educational curriculum.  Taken apart
+from the rest of the system, the logic produces a type of mind that
+revels in subtle argumentation.  It exalts the form of thought at the
+expense of the matter.  It had this effect on the monophysite
+theologians.  They were trained dialecticians.  They were noted for
+their controversial powers, for their constant appeal to definition,
+for the mechanical precision of their arguments.  These mental
+qualities, excellent in themselves, do not conduce to sound theology.
+Formal logic effects clarity of thought often at the expense of depth.
+It treats thoughts as things.  Procedure, that is proper in the sphere
+of logic, is out of place in psychology and theology.  Concepts such as
+person and nature must be kept fluid, if they are not to mislead.  If
+they are made into hard and fast ideas, into sharply defined
+abstractions, they will be taken to represent discrete psychic
+entities, external to one another as numbers are.  The elusive, Protean
+character of the inter-penetrating realities behind them will be lost
+to view.  The most signal defect of monophysite method is its
+unquestioning submission to the Aristotelian law of contradiction.  The
+intellectual training that makes men acute logicians disqualifies them
+for dealing with the living subject.  The monophysite Christologians
+were subtle dialecticians, but the psychology of Christ's being lay
+outside their competence.
+
+
+
+ARISTOTLE'S CRITICISM OF DUALISM--A WEAPON IN THE HANDS OF THE
+MONOPHYSITES
+
+Leaving the formal element in Aristotle's system, we come to its
+material content.  Some of the prominent ideas of the Aristotelian
+cosmology and psychology reappear in the heresy we are studying.  We
+shall take first the rejection of the Platonic dualism.  Aristotle's
+repeated criticism of his master's theory of ideas is not merely
+destructive.  It formed the starting-point for his own metaphysic.  The
+ideas, he says, simply duplicate the world of existent things.  They do
+not create things or move them; they do not explain genesis or process;
+they merely co-exist with the ideates.  The participation which Plato's
+later theory postulated is inadequate.  A more intimate relation is
+required.  The theory of ideas confronts God with a world, and leaves
+the relation between them unformulated and inexplicable.
+
+This criticism is of first importance for theology.  Faith as well as
+reason demands a real relation between idea and ideate.  The Christian
+student in the fifth century, familiar with Aristotle's criticism of
+Plato, would inevitably apply it in Christology.  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 ideas.  The Nestorian formula, in effect, juxtaposed the ideal
+Christ and the real Jesus, and left the two unrelated.  This was
+Platonism in Christology.  Aristotle's attack on Plato's system
+provided a radical criticism of Nestorianism.  The monophysite
+theologians were blind to the difference between the Nestorian position
+and that of the orthodox.  They saw that Aristotle had placed a
+powerful weapon in their hands, and they used it indifferently against
+both opposing parties.
+
+
+
+ARISTOTLE'S PSYCHOLOGY
+
+We turn now to Aristotle's psychology.  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 defect.  It is a
+radical defect, namely, the almost complete absence of the conception
+of personality.  The principle of Aristotle's psychology, like that of
+his metaphysic, is the concept of form and matter.  The soul of man
+comes under the general ontological law.  All existence is divisible
+into grades, the lower grade being the matter whose form is constituted
+by the next highest grade.  Thus there is a graduated scale of being,
+starting from pure matter and rising to pure form.  The inorganic is
+matter for the vegetable kingdom, the vegetable kingdom for the animal
+kingdom; the nutritive process is material for the sensitive, and the
+sensitive for the cognitive.  Man is an epitome of these processes.
+The various parts of his nature are arranged in an ascending scale;
+form is the only cohesive force.  The animal soul is the form of the
+body, born with it, growing with it, dying with it; the two are one in
+the closest union conceivable.  Besides the soul of the body, there is,
+says Aristotle, a soul of the soul.  This is reason, essentially
+different from animal and sensitive soul.  It is not connected with
+organic function.  It is pure intellectual principle.  It is
+immaterial, immortal, the divine element in man.  This reason is not a
+bare unity.  As it appears in human experience, it is not full-grown.
+Potentially it contains all the categories, but the potentiality must
+be actualised.  Consequently reason subdivides into active and passive
+intellect.  The action of the former on the latter, and the response of
+the latter to the former, constitute the development of the mind, the
+education of the truth that is potentially present from the beginning.
+
+This hierarchy of immaterial entities contains nothing corresponding to
+our idea of personality.  There is in it no principle that is both
+individual and immortal.  Aristotle allows immortality only to the
+universal reason.  The psychic elements are condemned to perish with
+the body.  There is no hope for the parts of the soul which are most
+intimately connected with the individual's experience.
+
+Monophysite Christology shares this fundamental defect.  The
+monophysite thinker attempted to express the union of two natures
+within one experience.  But his psychology, not containing the notion
+of personality, could furnish no principle of synthesis.  An agent in
+the background of life, to combine the multiplicity of experience, is a
+_sine qua non_ of a sound Christology.  Personality was to the
+monophysites a _terra incognita_; and it was in large measure their
+devotion to Aristotle's system that made them deaf to the teaching of
+the catholic church.
+
+
+
+INTELLECTUALISM AND MYSTICISM COMPLEMENTARY SYSTEMS
+
+After this sketch of the Aristotelian features recognisable in
+monophysitism, we turn to the other great pagan philosophy that
+assisted in the shaping of the heresy.  Intellectualism and mysticism
+are closely allied; the two are complementary; they are as mutually
+dependent as are head and heart.  It is not then surprising that
+monophysitism should possess the characteristics of both these schools
+of thought.  The intellectualism of the heresy was largely due, as we
+have shown, to the Aristotelian logic and metaphysic; its mystic
+elements derive, as we proceed to indicate, from Neo-Platonism and
+kindred theosophies.
+
+Alexandria had been for centuries the home of the mystics.  The
+geographical position, as well as the political circumstances of its
+foundation, destined that city to be the meeting-place of West and
+East.  There the wisdom of the Orient met and fought and fused with
+that of the Occident.  There Philo taught, and bequeathed to the
+Neo-Platonists much of his Pythagorean system.  There flourished for a
+while and died fantastic eclectic creeds, pagan theosophies
+masquerading as Christianity.  Gnosticism was a typical product of the
+city.  Valentinus and Basilides and the other gnostics made in that
+cosmopolitan atmosphere their attempts to reconcile Christianity with
+Greek and oriental thought.  There Ammonius Saccas, after his lapse
+from the Christian faith, taught and laid the foundation of
+Neo-Platonism.  Plotinus was the greatest of his disciples, and, though
+he taught at Rome for most of his life, it was in the spirit of
+Alexandria that he wrought his absolute philosophy, the full-orbed
+splendour of the setting sun of Greek thought.  Neo-Platonism did not
+die with Plotinus.  In the middle of the fifth century, when
+monophysitism was at its zenith, Proclus was fashioning an intellectual
+machinery to express the Plotinian system.  The story of Hypatia
+evidences the dominant position of Neo-Platonism in Alexandrian
+culture.  The violence of Cyril's measures against her shows what a
+menace to the Church that philosophy was.  Cyril was not a monophysite,
+but much that he said and did promoted their cause.  Dioscurus, his
+nephew and successor in the see of Alexandria, championed monophysitism
+at the council of Chalcedon.  In later generations Alexandria always
+offered an asylum to exiled monophysite leaders.
+
+These facts render it impossible to regard the connection between
+Alexandria and monophysitism as fortuitous.  They further suggest that
+Neo-Platonism was the connecting link.  Such in fact it was.
+Monophysitism, we might almost say, was Neo-Platonism in Christian
+dress.  The ethos of the two systems is the same, and the doctrinal
+resemblance is marked.  It was natural that the home of pagan mysticism
+should cradle the kindred system of heretical Christian mysticism.
+
+
+
+NEO-PLATONIST ONTOLOGY
+
+The representative figure amongst the Neo-Platonists is Plotinus.  His
+comprehensive mind gathered up the main threads of Alexandrian thought,
+and wove them into the fabric of a vast speculative system.  The system
+is as much a religion as a philosophy.  It is the triumph of
+uncompromising monism.  The last traces of dualism have been
+eradicated.  God, for Plotinus, is true being and the only being.  He
+is all and in all.  God is an impersonal Trinity, comprising the One,
+the cosmic reason and the cosmic soul.  The One is primal, ineffable,
+behind and beyond all human experience.  All we know of Him is that He
+is the source and union of reason and soul.  Creation is effected by a
+continuous series of emanations from God.  Emanation is not an
+arbitrary act of divine will; it is a necessary consequence of the
+nature of the One.  God must negate Himself, and the process is
+creation.  The further the process of negation is carried, the less
+reality does the created object possess.  Last in the scale comes
+matter, which has no self-subsistence, but is the absolute
+self-negation of God.  We referred in the last chapter to Plotinus'
+favourite illustration.  We may be allowed, perhaps, to repeat it here.
+As light, he says, issues from the sun and grows gradually dimmer,
+until it passes by imperceptible degrees into the dark, so reason
+emanates from God and, passing through the phases of nature, loses its
+essence gradually in its procession, until finally it is derationalised
+and becomes its opposite.
+
+
+
+NEO-PLATONIST PSYCHOLOGY
+
+Human souls are at an intermediate stage of this cosmic process.  Like
+the ray of light which touches both sun and earth, they have contact
+with God and with matter.  They stand midway in creation.  They are
+attracted upwards and downwards.  Reason draws them to God; sense
+chains them to earth.  Their position decides their duty.  (Here the
+philosophy becomes a religion).  The duty of man is to break the
+sensuous chains and set the soul free to return to its home in God.
+This return of the soul to God is attained by the path of knowledge.
+The knowledge that frees is not speculative; for such enhances
+self-consciousness.  It is immediate consciousness indistinguishable
+from unconsciousness.  It is intuitive knowledge.  It is vision in
+which the seer loses himself, and what sees is the same as what is
+seen.  It is the absorption of the soul in the world reason, and so
+with God.
+
+The Neo-Platonist took practical steps to attain this mystic state.  He
+submitted to rule and discipline.  By mortification of the flesh he
+endeavoured to weaken sensuous desire.  The arts of theurgy were
+employed to wean the mind from sensuous knowledge, and to fix
+aspiration on unseen realities.  Contemplation and self-hypnotism were
+widely practised.  In ecstasy the mystic found a foretaste of that
+blissful loss of being, which is the goal and crown of philosophic
+thought.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM AND NEO-PLATONISM
+
+When we compare monophysitism with the system of Plotinus, several
+points of resemblance appear.  There is first the impersonal character
+of the deity.  Monophysitism was not a Trinitarian heresy, and the
+Catholic doctrine of the three persons in the godhead was the official
+creed of the heretical church.  But their theologians refrained from
+laying emphasis upon the distinct personalities of Father, Son and Holy
+Ghost.  Their sympathies were Sabellian to the core, and Sabellian
+heresies were constantly recurring within their communion.  The
+impersonal Trinity, such as Plotinus taught, was thoroughly in keeping
+with their Christology.  They lacked a clear conception of personality
+in the second Person of the Trinity.  It was inevitable that they
+should overlook the same element in the incarnate Christ.
+
+The Neo-Platonic view of matter finds its counterpart in monophysite
+theory.  The monophysites, without formally denying its real existence,
+nursed a Manichean suspicion of it.  It was, to them, the seat of
+illusion; it was an obstacle to spirit, the enemy of spiritual
+development.  If not unreal, it was at any rate unworthy.  The
+association of Christ with matter through His body and through His
+human nature was, in their eyes, a degradation of deity.  That Christ
+took matter up into His being as a permanent element, that He dignified
+the body and glorified human faculties, these facts seemed to the
+monophysite mind improbable, and, if true, devoid of religious
+significance.  It came natural to him to explain Christ's body as a
+phantom.  He was prepared to regard the human nature as unsubstantial.
+The mystic's view of matter, of sense and human existence characterises
+the whole monophysite outlook.
+
+In the spirit of Plotinus the monophysites conceived the incarnation as
+the supreme example of the _unio mystica_.  The _unio mystica_ was a
+state of rapture, abnormal and temporary in earthly experience, in
+which the identity of the mystic was actually merged in the cosmic
+reason.  The lower nature disappeared completely into the higher.  It
+was absorption.  This word "absorption" was in common use among the
+heretics.  It was a trite saying among the first generation of the
+monophysites that "the human nature of Christ was absorbed in the
+divine, as a drop of honey in the ocean."  They conceived His thought
+as lost in the universal reason, His will as surrendered to the will of
+God, His human affections as fused in the fire of divine feeling, His
+body as a phantom.  They could not admit that He lived the real life of
+a real man.  They could not see the value of such a life.
+Neo-Platonism had paralysed their optic nerve.  Thinkers such as the
+Christologians of Alexandria, imbued with the spirit of Neo-Platonism,
+had no motive for preserving the distinct subsistence of Christ's human
+nature.  It was their boast that their Ideal had faced and overcome and
+trampled on the lower elements of His being.  He was a proof from fact
+that body and sense and all that is distinctively human could be
+sublimated into the universal substance, which is the primary effluence
+of the Plotinian One.  In a word, the incarnate Christ was, to them,
+the personification of the Neo-Platonist _unio mystica_.
+
+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 life.  Neo-Platonism was a religion.  Its speculative aspect was
+subordinate to its practical.  A knowledge of the soul's position in
+creation and of its destiny laid the philosopher under strict
+obligation.  Fasting and self-denial were essential preliminaries to
+the higher mystic practices.  Ecstasy could not be reached until body
+and sense had been starved into complete submission.  Monophysitism
+adopted this tradition, and made ascesis the central duty of the
+Christian life.  The monophysite church became celebrated for the
+length and rigidity of its fasts.  The monastic element dominated its
+communion.  Indeed, it is hardly too much to say that the monophysite
+movement, on its external side, was an attempt to capture the Church
+for monastic principles.  The heresy drew its inspiration from the
+cloister.  The Christ of the monophysites had withdrawn from the market
+to the wilderness; so His followers must needs go out of the world to
+follow in His steps.
+
+
+
+[1] Harnack, "History of Dogma," vol. iv. chap. ii. p. 160.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III
+
+MONOPHYSITE DOCTRINE
+
+The distinctive doctrine of monophysitism, that from which the name of
+the heresy is taken, is the assertion that there is but one nature, the
+divine nature, in Christ.  There existed some difference of opinion
+among the monophysites as to whether any degree of reality might be
+ascribed to the human nature.  Some were prepared to allow it
+conceptual reality; they would grant that Christ had been diphysite
+momentarily, that He was "out of two natures."  But that admission is
+quite inadequate.  It amounts to no more than the paltry concession
+that Christ's human nature before the incarnation is conceivable as a
+separate entity.  All monophysites united in condemning the diphysite
+doctrine that after the incarnation Christ was and is "in two natures."
+Such a Christ they would not worship.  It was "the image with two faces
+that the Council of Chalcedon had set up."[1]  They adopted the
+Athanasian phrase, "One incarnate nature of God the Word," as their
+battle-cry.
+
+Monophysitism can make out a strong _prima facie_ case.  It is
+attractive at first sight.  The heretical formula seems simpler and
+more natural than the catholic.  The unity of nature appears a
+corollary of the unity of person.  Human personality is ordinarily
+assumed to be monophysite; so it is natural to make the same assumption
+as to divine personality.  The simplicity of the doctrine is, however,
+all on the surface.  It will not bear examination.  As a definition of
+Christian faith it is useless.  It cannot account for the recorded
+facts of Christ's life.  The facts of His body, of His mind, of His
+sufferings refuse to fit into it.  It affords no foundation for belief
+in His transcendent work.  No intelligible doctrine of redemption can
+be built upon it.  It contains no germ of hope for mankind.  Therefore
+the Church in the name of Christ and on behalf of humanity rejected it.
+
+Although the heresy has been officially condemned, it should none the
+less be studied.  It is improbable that any one in our time will defend
+the formula, or openly profess the doctrines that follow from it.  But,
+though not recognised as such, it is an ever-present and instant menace
+to the Faith.  Monophysite tendencies are inherent in religious
+thought.  The metaphysical idea, on which it rests, still has a
+powerful hold over the human mind.  Spiritually-minded men are
+especially liable to this form of error.  It is a mistake to think that
+Christological questions were settled once and for all in the fifth
+century.  Each generation has to settle them afresh.  Accordingly, to
+exhibit the consequences of the monophysite formula, to show how wrong
+abstract ideas develop into wrong concrete ideas and falsify Christian
+practice, is a task of practical and present-day importance.
+
+
+
+CLASSIFICATION OF MONOPHYSITE ERRORS
+
+Two classes of erroneous beliefs result from a misconception of the
+relation between God and man in Christ.  There arise, on the one hand,
+false opinions about the deity of Christ, and on the other, false
+opinions as to His manhood.  We shall adopt this classification as we
+investigate the doctrinal consequences of the monophysite formula.  It
+is the method followed in one of the earliest systematic criticisms of
+the heresy.  Leo's Tome, or letter to Flavian, contains a lucid
+statement of the catholic doctrine of the incarnation, and an acute
+analysis of the system of Eutyches, the heresiarch.  He summarises the
+errors of Eutyches under two heads; there are two main counts in his
+indictment of the heresy.  Eutyches, he contends, makes Jesus Christ
+"deus passibilis et homo falsus."  Eutyches and his followers
+compromised both deity and humanity.  The deity becomes passible, the
+humanity unreal.  All the monophysite misbeliefs can be classified
+under one or other of these two heads.
+
+
+
+THE CONCEPT "IMPASSIBILITY" AS APPLIED TO DEITY
+
+We shall take first those errors that compromise the nature of the
+deity, and shall preface our analysis by an explanation of the meaning
+of the term "deus impassibilis."  The impassibility of God is the
+corner-stone of spiritual monotheism.  Christianity owes it, as a
+philosophic doctrine, largely to Aristotle.  He conceived deity as
+"actus purus," as the One who moves without being moved, a "causa sui."
+The popular gods of Greece were passible; they were possible objects of
+sense; they were acted on largely as man is acted on.  They had a
+beginning, and were subject to many of the processes of time.  They
+were swayed by human motives.  They were, at times, angry, afraid,
+unsatisfied, ambitious, jealous.  Aristotle gave to the world the
+conception of a transcendent God, a being who is real and yet is
+"without body, parts and passions," who cannot receive idolatrous
+worship, and is not an object of sense.  Impassibility was one of the
+highest attributes of this being.  The attribute does not involve or
+imply absence of feeling.  Originally it had no reference to feeling,
+in the psychological sense of that word.  It certainly excludes
+incidentally the lower, specifically human feelings, feelings caused by
+external stimuli, feelings due to want or to lack of power.  It does
+not exclude the higher affections from the deity.  Even in the _nóêsis
+noêseôs_ of Aristotle, there is room for the transcendent bliss of
+divine self-contemplation.  Much more in the Christian God is there
+room for spontaneous feeling, springing from His own nature, the
+necessary concomitant of thought and will.  Impassibility is a
+comprehensive attribute.  Originally negative, it soon acquired a rich
+positive connotation.  An impassible God is one who is outside space
+and time.  The attribute connotes creative power, eternity, infinity,
+permanence.  A passible God is corruptible, _i.e._ susceptible to the
+processes of becoming, change, and decay.  If to-day theists have to be
+on their guard against debased conceptions of deity, in the plausible
+garb of an "invisible king," of a finite or suffering God, much more
+was such caution necessary in the early centuries of the Christian era.
+Christians who came daily and hourly into contact with polytheistic
+beliefs and practices had to be very jealous for the concept of
+impassibility.  It represented to them all that was distinctive in the
+highest region of their Faith.
+
+Monophysitism, as we proceed to show, compromised this article of the
+Faith.  Its adherents did not, perhaps, do so intentionally.  In fact,
+the first generation of monophysites maintained that their definition
+safeguarded the impassibility.  It was zeal for the honour of the Son
+of God that induced them to deny Him all contact with humanity.  Their
+good intentions, however, could not permanently counteract the evil
+inherent in their system.  In later generations the evil came to the
+surface.  Theopaschitism, the doctrine that openly denies the
+impassibility of the godhead, flourished in the monophysite churches.
+
+
+
+MONISM ENTAILS A DEBASED CONCEPTION OF DEITY
+
+The metaphysical basis of monophysitism made this result inevitable.
+Extremes meet.  Extreme spirituality readily passes into its opposite.
+It cuts the ground from under its own feet.  It soars beyond its
+powers, and falls into the mire of materialism.  Illustrations of this
+fact can be found in the history of philosophy.  The Stoics, for
+instance, contrived to be both pantheists and materialists.  Coming
+nearer to our own time, we find Hegelianism explained in diametrically
+opposite ways.  After Hegel's death his disciples split into opposing
+camps; one party maintained that the real was spirit, the other that it
+was matter.  Each party claimed the authority of the master for their
+view.  The divergence is easy to explain.  From spiritual monism it is
+a short step to materialistic monism.  For the monist, all is on one
+level of being.  He may by constant effort keep that level high.  But
+gravity will act.  We are more prone to degrade God to our level, than
+to rise to His.  The same truth can be put _in abstracto_.  Unless the
+relation between God and the world be preserved as a true relation, the
+higher term will sooner or later fall to the level of the lower, and be
+lost in it.  This rule holds as well in movements of religious thought.
+The monophysite strove for a lofty conception of deity but achieved a
+low one.  He undermined the doctrine of impassibility by the very
+measures he took to secure it.
+
+In the technical language of Christology the monophysites' debased
+conception of deity was a consequence of "confounding the natures."
+Attributes and actions, belonging properly only to Christ's humanity,
+were ascribed recklessly to His divinity.  The test phrase "theotokos,"
+invaluable as a protest against Nestorianism, became a precedent for
+all sorts of doctrinal extravagancies.  The famous addition to the
+Trisagion, "who wast crucified for us," which for a time won
+recognition as sound and catholic, was first made by the monophysite
+Bishop of Antioch.[2]  Both these phrases have scriptural authority,
+and they are justified by the _communicatio idiomatum_.  But they are
+liable to misuse and misinterpretation.  All depended on how they were
+said and who said them.  The monophysite meant one thing by them, the
+catholic another.  The _arrière pensée_ of the monophysite gave them a
+wrong turn.  He was always on the look-out for paradox in Christ's
+life.  He emphasised such phrases as appeared to detract from the
+reality of His human experiences.  He spoke of Christ as "ruling the
+universe when He lay in the manger," or as "directing the affairs of
+nations from the Cross."  The catholic can approve these phrases; in
+the mouth of a monophysite they have a heretical sound.  They suggest a
+passible God; they degrade the infinite to the level of the finite.
+The monophysite confounds the natures, and so he has no right to appeal
+to the _communicatio idiomatum_.  Unless the _idiomata_ are admitted as
+such, unless they are preserved in their distinctness, there can be no
+_communicatio_ between them.  If they are fused, they cannot act and
+react upon each other.  The monophysite, by identifying the natures,
+forfeits the right to use the term "Theotokos" and the Trisagion
+addition.  On his lips their inevitable implication is a finite
+suffering God.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
+
+Monophysitism was not originally or _per se_ a Trinitarian heresy.
+Equally with catholics and Nestorians its adherents accepted the Nicene
+definition.  They professed to believe in one God in three co-equal
+persons.  This belief, firmly held in all that it involves, would have
+kept them from attributing passibility to the Godhead, and ultimately
+have neutralised the errors of their Christology.  But their
+Christology corrupted their theology.  Abandoning all vital relation
+between God and man in Christ, they abandoned the relation in the
+Godhead.  The internal and external relations of the Godhead are
+mutually dependent.  If there be no trinity of persons, the incarnation
+is impossible.  Were God a bare monad, He could not impart Himself and
+remain Himself.  The fact that there are related persons in the deity
+is the only justification for the use of the phrases discussed in the
+previous paragraph.  When the catholic says, "God was born, suffered,
+died," he is right, because his presupposition is right.  When the
+monophysite uses the same words, he is wrong, because his
+presupposition is wrong.  The catholic preserves in the background of
+his thought the distinction between the _ousía_ and the threefold
+_hypóstasis_, between the essential godhead and the three persons.  So
+he is in no danger of ascribing passion to the essence or to the
+persons of Father or Holy Spirit.  When he says "God was born," he is
+compressing two statements into one.  He means "Christ was born, and
+Christ was God."  Not in respect of what He has in common with the
+other persons of the Trinity, but in respect of His property of sonship
+did He lower Himself to the plane of suffering.  The catholic holds not
+a suffering God, but a suffering divine person.  He maintains an
+impassible God, but a passible Christ.  A dead God is a contradiction
+in terms; a Christ who died is the hope of humanity.
+
+Monophysite theology became involved in further embarrassments.
+Unwillingness to attribute passibility to God, coupled with the desire
+to remain in some sort trinitarians, forced many of the monophysites
+into the Sabellian position.  Deity, they said in effect, did not
+suffer in the second person of the trinity, because there is no such
+person.  The persons of the trinity are simply characters assumed by
+the monadic essence, or aspects under which men view it.  On this
+showing, the Logos, who was incarnate, had no personal subsistence.
+The relation between God and man ever remains impersonal.  Christ,
+_qua_ divine, was only an aspect or effluence of deity.  This, for the
+monophysite, was the one alternative to the doctrine of a passible God.
+He was faced with a desperate dilemma.  If he retained his belief in a
+transcendent God, he must surrender belief in a triune God.  He could
+choose between the two; but his Christology permitted no third choice.
+For him, the only alternative to a finite God was a lone God.  As a
+result monophysite theology oscillated between denial of the
+impassibility of God and denial of his three-fold personality.  In
+either case the orthodox doctrine of the godhead was abandoned.
+
+One of the stock questions propounded by the catholics to the
+monophysites was, "Was the trinity incomplete when the Son of God was
+on earth?"  The question is crudely expressed, as it ignores the type
+of existence proper to spiritual personality; but it contains a
+sufficiently sound _ad hominem_ argument.  The monophysite could not
+say "yes," or he would then be driven to assert a passible God.  If he
+said "no," his reply was tantamount to the assertion that the whole
+essence of the Godhead was incarnate.  The logic of this dilemma was so
+cogent that not a few monophysites succumbed to it, and adopted a
+position similar to that of the earlier Patripassianists.  These
+seceded from the monophysite church, and founded an independent sect,
+called the Theopaschites.  As often happens, the sect is, doctrinally,
+more representative than the parent body.  The Theopaschites were the
+thinkers who had the courage to push the monophysite doctrines to their
+logical conclusions.  Those who did not secede, unable to defend their
+own doctrinal position, retaliated with the counter-charge of
+tetratheism.  This stroke was simply a confession of weakness.  Monism
+was strangling their Christianity at every turn.  Instead of breaking
+free from it, they pretended that their opponents were polytheists.
+The catholic, however, was neither monist nor pluralist.  The
+incarnation was not the addition of a fourth divine being to the
+trinity.  The essence of the godhead remained complete, unchanged and
+impassible; 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 God.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM AND ISLAM--SABELLIANISM THE CONNECTING LINK
+
+It is in place here to point out the somewhat intimate connection that
+existed between monophysitism and Islam.  The monophysites held the
+outposts of the Empire.  Mahomet came into contact with them, and it
+was probably from them that he formed his conception of Christian
+doctrine.  The later history of the monophysite churches shows that
+they often secured a large measure of toleration at the hands of the
+Caliphs, while the diphysites were being rigorously persecuted.  Lapses
+to Islam were not infrequent, and in some periods apostasy on a large
+scale occurred.  Cases are on record even of monophysite patriarchs who
+abjured their faith and joined the followers of the Prophet.  The
+connection between monophysitism and Islam was not fortuitous.  There
+was a doctrinal affinity between them.  Both systems were rigidly
+monotheistic.  Both degraded the notion of deity by a perverse attempt
+to exalt it.  Both cut redemption and mediation out of their religion.
+
+The family likeness between the two systems does not extend beyond the
+realm of the doctrine of supreme deity.  In other respects the religion
+of the sword and the religion of love have little or nothing in common.
+Crescent and Cross are poles asunder.  The monophysites as a body
+remained nominally and in intention Christians and trinitarians.  But
+in the doctrinal area specified the resemblance holds.  It could hardly
+be otherwise.  Sabellian tendencies were always present and powerful in
+the monophysite communion, and Sabellianism is a long step in the
+direction of Islam.  Sabellius taught in effect, "Allah is one."  The
+three persons, for him, were only aspects of the one indivisible deity.
+There are no distinct entities corresponding to the names of Father,
+Son and Holy Spirit.  Sabellianism is intimately associated with monism
+in all its phases.  Monophysitism being essentially monist could not
+escape the taint.  Whether Sabellianism made the heretics monophysites,
+or monophysitism made them Sabellians, we need not inquire.  The two
+creeds are bound up in the same bundle by the tie of monism.  The
+relation of the Son to the Father and the relation of the Son to
+humanity are vitally connected.  Misconception of the one relation
+entails misconception of the other.  Denial of relation in the godhead
+goes hand in hand with denial of relation in Christ.  If the theologian
+reduces the latter to bare unity, he does the same for the former.
+Catholic Christology is thus a necessary deduction from trinitarian
+dogma.  Nicaea necessitated Chalcedon.  To safeguard the distinction of
+persons in the godhead, a distinction in the natures of Christ was
+essential.  To preserve intact the latter distinction, the proprium of
+the Son and His personal subsistence had to be kept distinct from the
+proprium and subsistence of the Father.
+
+
+
+THE CHRISTOLOGICAL ERRORS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+
+We leave here the area of theology and come to that of Christology.  We
+have exhibited the monophysite errors with respect to the doctrine of
+primal deity; we now proceed to analyse their views with respect to the
+incarnate Christ.  The former subject leads the thinker into deep
+water; the layman is out of his depth in it; so it does not furnish
+material for a popular controversy.  It is otherwise with the latter
+subject.  Here the issue is narrowed to a point.  It becomes a question
+of fact, namely, "Was Christ a real man?"  The question and most of the
+answers given to it are readily intelligible, and they naturally gave
+rise to heated controversy.  Theopaschitism is, as we have shown, a
+tendency inherent in the heresy, but one slow to come to the surface,
+and one easily counter-acted and suppressed by the personal piety of
+the monophysite.  Its docetism, the assertion of the unreality of
+Christ's human nature, lies on the surface.  No amount of personal
+piety can neutralise it.  It has had, and still has, a crippling effect
+on the faith of devout Christians.  Even where it is not carried to the
+length of formal heresy, it spreads a haze of unreality over the gospel
+story, and dulls the edge of belief.
+
+The second count of Leo's charge against the monophysites was, it will
+be remembered, that their presentation of Christ made Him "homo
+falsus."  Under this heading "homo falsus" may be classed a wide group
+of erroneous tenets, ranging from the crudities of early docetism to
+the subtleties of Apollinarianism.  We propose to sketch those of major
+importance.  No attempt will be made to take them in their historical
+order or historical setting.  Further, it is not implied that they all
+formed part of the official doctrine of the monophysite church.  The
+standard of belief in that communion was constantly varying, and the
+history of its dogma would need a work to itself.  We shall deal with
+those Christological errors, which, whether part of the official
+monophysite creed or not, are logical results of the monophysite
+formula.
+
+Unreality may be predicated of Christ's human nature as a whole, or in
+respect of its parts.  Consubstantiality with humanity may be denied of
+the whole of his human nature; or deficiency in one or other of the
+essential constituents of human nature may be alleged.  We shall deal
+first with those errors that concern the entire nature, coming later to
+the errors in respect of one or more of its several parts.
+
+Suspicion of the reality of Christ's human nature as a whole is
+characteristic of all monophysite thought.  This suspicion, not always
+formulated or expressed, is everywhere present.  If the monophysites
+admitted the fact of His true manhood, they denied or neglected the
+religious value of that fact.  Their spurious spirituality rebelled
+against a dogma which seemed to tie the infinite down to a point in
+history.  The fact that the Son of God lived a perfect human life
+contained no inspiration for them.  They idealised the incarnation.  It
+was not for them a historical event.  This is a corollary to the
+proposition, maintained by their great champion, Philoxenus, that "no
+addition to His person took place."  It is tantamount to saying that
+the union of divine and human in Christ is purely conceptual.  When the
+monophysite faced the question, "What change in Christ did the
+incarnation effect?" his formula constrained him to reply, "It made no
+change."  The deity of the person was not denied.  The pre-existent
+Logos and the Christ who walked in Galilee were admittedly one and the
+same.  The second person of the trinity and Jesus of Nazareth were one
+personality.  If Bethlehem made no change in that personality, it was
+purposeless, and the import of the incarnation disappears.
+
+
+
+THE MONOPHYSITE THEORY OF A COMPOSITION OF NATURES
+
+For the consistent monophysites, then, the human nature, as a psychic
+entity with peculiar properties, did not survive the incarnation.  They
+did, however, allow it a verbal reality.  They admitted a composition
+of natures, and this composition provided for them whatever degree of
+reality the incarnation possessed.  On this point their Christology
+passed through several stages of development, the later stages showing
+progressive improvement on the earlier.  They distinguished three
+senses of the word "composition."  First, they said, it might mean
+"absorption," as when a drop of water is absorbed in a jar of wine.
+Second, it might imply the transmutation of constituent particles, as
+when a third unlike thing is formed from two.  Thirdly, there is
+composition when, from the association of two whole and entire things,
+a third whole and entire compound thing is formed without loss to the
+components.  They illustrated the third mode of composition by the
+union in man of soul and body.  The pre-Eutychian monophysites regarded
+the hypostatic union as a composition in the first sense of the word.
+They spoke of Christ's human nature as absorbed in the divine, as is "a
+drop of vinegar in the ocean."  Eutyches adopted the term in its second
+sense.  He taught that the Word became flesh[3] "as the atmosphere
+assumes bodily form and becomes rain or snow under the influence of the
+wind, and as water becomes ice by reason of the cold air."  Philoxenus
+in a later generation saw that both these positions were wrong and the
+similes misleading.  He taught a hypostatic union totally devoid of
+confusion or loss or commutation of the elements of the two natures.
+To illustrate his meaning he used the simile supplied by the
+"Athanasian" creed, "as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so
+God and Man is one Christ."  This position is a vast improvement on
+that of the original monophysites.  It was ground gained to secure the
+admission that in any sense Christ was very man.  But the monophysites
+never learned the true manner of the union, namely, that Christ was
+"one; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the
+Manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of Substance but by
+unity of Person."
+
+Read in this connection the assertion that God and man is one Christ,
+"as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man," is orthodox; read apart
+from this context, it is ambiguous.  If the simile be kept as a simile,
+as a mere suggestion or hint as to how, in general, two may compose one
+and yet remain two, then no exception can be taken to it.  If, however,
+the clause be interpreted as a proportion sum, assigning corresponding
+values to the different terms, then it savours strongly of
+Apollinarianism.  Most monophysites, like many moderns, probably
+understood it in the mathematical sense.  Christ, they argued, was God
+and man, just as man is rational soul and body; the terms are in
+proportion; therefore the divine nature was the rational soul, and the
+human nature was the body.  They forgot that the free act of the whole
+divine person in assuming man underlies the union and makes it
+efficacious; they gave _sárx_; the narrow meaning of _sôma_, they set
+before themselves the picture, not of the infinite robing in the
+finite, but of the union of mind and matter.  Consequently they
+habitually spoke of the Logos, as assuming, not man or a human nature,
+but a body.
+
+Such in its varying phases was the monophysite doctrine of composition.
+At its worst, it contained a direct denial of the real humanity of
+Christ.  At its best, it falls far short of the catholic doctrine of
+His real, perfect and complete humanity.  The permanent assumption of
+human nature into the transcendent personality had no meaning for the
+heretic party.  If it had taken place, it was, they thought, merely
+momentary, with no after-effects, the passing of a summer cloud across
+the face of the sun.
+
+We have considered the monophysites' view of Christ's human nature,
+regarded as an integral psychic entity.  It is evident that they either
+undervalued it or denied its existence.  The more consistent thinkers
+of their party maintained that the incarnation had made no difference
+in the being of Christ, and that therefore His human nature had no
+objective reality.  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 Christ, that its net result was a composition.
+Further analysis showed that this concession was rendered nugatory;
+that in whatever sense the word "composition" was taken, it was
+inadequate to express the hypostatic union; that the composition proved
+in its first significance illusory, in its second, hybridous, in its
+third, Apollinarianist.  We pass on now to review the human nature in
+its constituent parts, and it will be seen that the heretical formula
+undermines faith in respect of each several part.
+
+
+
+THE "PARTS" OF HUMAN NATURE
+
+From the standpoint of psychology human nature is divisible into parts.
+The division must not be taken as absolute; for the whole is a unity,
+and the parts are not discrete _quanta_.  The division is rather a
+classification of psychic states according to predominating features.
+The classification corresponds, however, to the facts of experience,
+and so psychology is justified in making use of it.  We shall adopt it
+in our investigation of the psychology of Christ.  The sharpest
+dividing line is that between immaterial and material, between soul and
+body.  The states of the soul fall into three well-marked groups,
+thought, will, and feeling.  The physical and the psychic are not
+always distinguishable.  Still more uncertain and tentative is the
+identification in the psychic of cognitive, volitional, and emotional
+faculties.  But in every man these parts are found.  They are
+constituents of human nature.  There may be other elements as yet
+unanalysed; but there can be no complete humanity that is deficient in
+respect of any of these parts.  We propose to take them singly in the
+above order, to show their existence in the historic Christ, and to
+expose the monophysite attempts to explain them away.
+
+
+
+CHRIST'S BODY
+
+It is obvious to an unprejudiced reader of the gospels that Christ's
+pre-resurrection body was real and normal.  It was an organism of flesh
+and blood, of the same constitution and structure as ours.  It occupied
+space, and was ordinarily subject to the laws of space.  It was visible
+and tangible.  It shared the natural processes of birth, growth, and
+metabolism.  At the resurrection a catastrophic change took place in
+it.  It was still a body.  It was still Christ's body.  Continuity was
+preserved.  The evidences of continuity were external, and so strong as
+to convince doubters.  We cannot fathom either the change or the
+continuity.  What we know is that after the resurrection the body was
+not so subject as before to the laws of space.  It was, it would seem,
+of finer atoms and subtler texture.  It had reached the height of
+physical being, and development apparently had ceased.  It was the
+entelechy of the human body.  It was still real, though no longer
+normal.  To employ paradox, it was natural of the species
+"supernatural."  It was the natural body raised to a higher power.  It
+was natural to human denizens of a higher world.  Body's function is
+two-fold.  It both limits the soul and expresses it.  It narrows the
+activity of the person to a point, and thus serves as a fine instrument
+for action upon matter.  At the same time it draws out the
+potentialities of the soul and fixes its development.  The
+post-resurrection body was apparently less limitative and more
+expressive.
+
+The foregoing considerations may be summed up in the form of three
+dogmata, all of which orthodox Christianity teaches.  These are, first,
+that Christ's pre-resurrection body was real and natural; second, that
+His resurrected and ascended body is real and supernatural; third, that
+there was a real continuity, whether by development or by epigenesis
+between the two.  In all these points the monophysites missed the
+truth.  Their presuppositions misled them.  As monists they were
+inclined to regard matter as sinful.  They could not conceive the
+infinite donning a soiled robe.  "Our body with its hateful wants"
+could not, they thought, be a tabernacle for the Logos.  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
+thinking.
+
+Since such was the background of their thought it was inevitable that
+definitely heretical doctrines should result.  In the first place we
+meet the flat denial of the reality of Christ's body.  Even in
+apostolic days those who held this heresy were found.  They denied that
+Christ had come in the flesh.  They were styled docetists or
+phantasiasts.  According to them the body had no objective reality.  It
+was a phantom.  Its reality was entirely subjective.  It was the effect
+produced on the perceptions of those who associated with the mysterious
+spirit-being.  The Logos, as viewed by the phantasiasts, at the
+incarnation struck His being into the bounds of time, but not of space.
+Divine personality, they thought, did not require and could not use a
+material medium.  This doctrine was not part of the official
+monophysite creed; but, as pointed out in the previous chapter,
+monophysitism was a lineal descendant of docetism, and always showed
+traces of its lineage.  The saying that, "Christ brought His body from
+heaven," was commonly attributed to Eutyches.  He denied having said
+it, but, at any rate, the general feeling of his followers was that
+Christ's physical nature was divine and therefore not consubstantial
+with ours.
+
+Such doctrines destroy the discipline of faith in the resurrection.
+The radical difference between the natural and the resurrection body is
+blurred by them.  The immense change is abolished.  The resurrection
+becomes purely a spiritual change, which even a non-Christian could
+accept.  The body, according to the tenor of monophysite teaching, was
+spirit before the resurrection and spirit after it.  Thus the ascension
+too becomes purely spiritual.  It is shorn of half its significance.
+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 heaven,
+namely, a glorified human body.  If He brought that body with Him from
+heaven, the main significance of His human dispensation falls to the
+ground.  The incarnation becomes unreal, illusory, impotent.
+
+An offshoot of docetism that flourished among the monophysites is the
+aphthartodocetic heresy.  This is of considerable historical
+importance.  Large numbers of the Syrian and Egyptian monophysites
+embraced it, and seceded from the parent church.  It became part of the
+official creed of Armenian Christianity, and that church has not
+repudiated it to this day.  There are good, though hardly conclusive,
+grounds for holding that the emperor Justinian, profound theologian and
+life-long champion of orthodoxy, was converted to the heretical theory
+in the last few months of his life.[4]  Aphthartodocetism, affirming
+the reality of Christ's body, denies that it was subject to the wear
+and tear of life.  The body, as this heresy taught, was superior to
+natural process; it was neither corrupted nor corruptible.  The term
+"corruptibility" has the wide significance of organic process, that is
+the lot of all created living things.  A milder form of the heresy
+asserted that Christ's body was corruptible but was not corrupted.
+Aphthartodocetism springs from a spurious spirituality, from a
+fastidiousness that has no place in true religion.  It is symptomatic
+of Manicheanism, which associates matter with sin.  Christians affirm
+sinlessness of Christ's humanity; they do not affirm immateriality of
+His body.  The monophysites, in abandoning the true Christology, were
+predisposed to the infection of this heresy.  A being in whom organic
+process was present seemed to these heretics no fit object of worship.
+They called the orthodox Ctistolatrae or Phthartolatrae, worshippers of
+the created or corruptible.
+
+Monophysites of all shades of opinion united in condemning the practice
+of worshipping Christ's human nature.  That practice was in their eyes
+both idle and injurious; idle, because the human nature did not exist
+as a separate entity; injurious, because it fixed the mind of the
+worshipper on the finite.  In consequence they were much opposed to all
+observances based on a belief in His humanity.  Images or other
+representations of Him in human form seemed to them idolatrous.  The
+monophysite church was not directly concerned in the iconoclastic
+controversy, but their doctrines were indirectly responsible for it.
+In fact the great monophysites, Severus and Philoxenus, have been
+styled "the fathers of the iconoclasts."
+
+
+
+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 body.  Difficulties
+equally great and errors equally fatal attended their attempt to
+conceive the conjunction of psychic elements with the divine person.
+Their formula was too narrow.  It compelled them to shut their eyes to
+one outstanding fact, namely, the duality of Christ's earthly
+experience.  This fact confronts the reader on every page of the
+gospels.  The duality is deep-seated; it extends to each psychic
+element, yet stops short of the personality.  In the world of Christ's
+nature there are two hemispheres.  His experiences are on two planes.
+In both of these hemispheres or planes we find thought, will, and
+feeling.  His thought on the higher plane is radically different in
+mode and scope from His thought on the lower plane.  The two are of a
+different order.  The same difference holds with respect to the other
+two psychic elements.  We propose to exemplify this assertion, first,
+in the case of cognition, and then in the case of will and feeling.
+This procedure will simplify the task of exposing the further
+consequences of the monophysite Christology.
+
+
+
+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 psychology.  We find in
+Christ two cognitive faculties with two dominant universes of thought
+and knowledge.  On occasions He speaks and acts as if He read at a
+glance all the secrets of nature and the human heart, as if all time
+past, present, and future was an open book to him, as if He were in the
+counsels of the Most High.  On those occasions divine intuition
+superseded in Him the slow and faulty methods of human intelligence;
+thought was vision, intellect intuition, knowledge omniscience.  Thus
+His divine nature cognised and knew.  That, however, is only one half
+of the picture.  On other occasions his mind appears to have been
+perfectly human.  His intelligence and perceptive faculties differed
+not essentially from ours.  He asked questions and sought information.
+He used human categories.  He progressed in wisdom.  The development of
+His mind was gradual.  His knowledge was relative to His age and
+surroundings.  Memory and obliviscence, those complementary and perhaps
+constituent elements of soul-being, attention, sensation, recognition,
+and discursive reasoning, all these exhibitions of the workings of the
+normal mind appeared in Christ.  In this manner His human nature
+cognised and knew.
+
+
+
+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 life.  On the theoretical side, they confirm the central
+dogma of orthodox Christology.  On the practical side, they give him
+authority for seeking Christ's sympathy in matters intellectual.  He
+realises that since Christ understands the education of the mind and
+can share his intellectual difficulties, there is hope for the
+redemption and regeneration of the highest part of his nature.  The
+monophysite finds neither support for his dogma, nor inspiration for
+life, in the fact that Christ had a human mind.  He is blind to the
+fact.  He has seen half the picture and regards it as the whole.  His
+ideal is a being in whom intuition supersedes intellect, whose
+knowledge is immediate, absolute, and complete.  The orthodox who held
+that Christ had and, at ordinary times, used a human reason, perfect of
+its kind, but still human in all the implications of the word, were in
+his eyes Agnoëtae; they were unbelievers who asserted the ignorance of
+Christ and set bounds to the vision and knowledge of the infinite.  The
+monophysite would modify his opinions and approach the catholic
+position on other doctrinal points, but never on this.  He might be
+persuaded to admit that Christ's body and "animal soul" were real and
+human, but to the consubstantiality of Christ's mind with man's he
+would not subscribe.  The Apollinarian strain in monophysitism was
+persistent.  The later monophysites never succeeded in banishing it
+from their system.  By Apollinarianism the humanity of Christ is
+crippled in its highest member.  It is a realm shorn of its fairest
+province.  According to Apollinaris, all that Christ assumed was an
+animated body.  His theory is like an ingenious system of canal locks
+for letting divine personality descend from the upper to the lower
+waters.  The ingenuity displayed in it condemns it.  It is an
+artificial makeshift.  The psychology on which it rests is antiquated.
+The picture of Christ it presents does not correspond to the recorded
+facts of His life.  Christ's human nature, as chiselled by the
+Apollinarian sculptor, is a torso.  Such an image fails to satisfy the
+demands of religious feeling, and the doctrines, Apollinarian and
+monophysite, that enshrine it are therefore valueless.
+
+
+
+TWO WILLS IN CHRIST
+
+We here leave the subject of cognition and pass to that of volition.
+Orthodoxy teaches that Christ had two wills.  This doctrine has a
+double basis.  In the first place, it is a corollary of the doctrine of
+two natures.  In the second, it is established by the recorded facts of
+the gospel narrative.  To take first the _a priori_ argument.  A nature
+without a will is inconceivable.  A cognitive faculty without the
+dynamic of the volitional would be a machine without driving force.
+The absurdity of the supposition, indeed, is not fully brought out by
+the simile.  For we can consider the machine at rest; it would then
+have existence and potential activity.  Will, however, is essential to
+the existence as well as to the activity of thought.  The connection
+between them is vital to both.  The psychologist distinguishes the
+respective parts each plays in life and marks off faculties to
+correspond to each.  But his distinction is only provisional.  The two
+develop _pari passu_, they are never separable; they act and re-act on
+one another.  Without some degree of attention there is no thought, not
+even perception of external objects.  Attention is as much an act of
+will as of thought.  Man does not first evolve ideas and then summon
+will to actuate them.  In the very formation of ideas will is present
+and active.  Accordingly from the duality of Christ's cognitive nature
+the psychologist would infer that He had two wills.  There is in Christ
+the divine will that controlled the forces of nature and could suspend
+their normal workings, the will that wrought miracle, the eternal will,
+infinite in scope and power, that was objectified in His age-long
+universal purpose, in a word, the will that undertook the superhuman
+task of cosmic reconstruction and achieved it.
+
+It is not easy for us to conceive the co-existence of two wills in one
+person.  The difficulty is part of the discipline of faith.  Christ's
+human will is no less a fact than His divine will.  The former played
+as large a part in His earthly experience as the latter.  It was
+present in all its normal phases, ranging from motor will to psychic
+resolve.  The lower forms of volition, motor impulse, desire and wish,
+the higher forms, deliberation, choice, purpose and resolve.  He shared
+them all with humanity.  There is in Him a human will, limited in
+scope, varying in intensity, developing with the growth of His human
+experience, a will like ours in everything, except that it was free
+from moral imperfection.  It was a finite will, inasmuch as the
+conditioning cognition was finite, perfect of its kind, adequate to its
+task, never faltering, yet of finite strength.  The two wills have each
+their own sphere.  They operate in perfect harmony.  Only at crises,
+such as the Agony, is there any appearance of discord.  The opposition
+there is only apparent.  The human will reaches its limit, and the
+superhuman will interposes to perform the superhuman task.
+
+The reality of the two wills, established for the orthodox both _a
+priori_ and by an appeal to fact, is denied by the monophysite.  He
+regards will as the fundamental psychic state and makes it an attribute
+of personality.  Two wills, he says, would necessitate two persons.  He
+does not see that personality lies deeper than will, and that will and
+cognition are co-ordinate attributes of nature.  If Christ had but one
+nature, it follows that He had but one will and operation.  The
+monophysite thinks of two wills as necessarily antagonistic, as are
+conflicting motives in man; so he sees no ethical value in dithelite
+doctrine.  As a matter of fact the moral influence of Christianity
+would be much weakened by an abandonment of the doctrine of two wills.
+The belief in Christ's human will prevents men from despairing of their
+will.  Human will cannot be wholly warped, or wholly misdirected, or
+utterly powerless, since Christ in His life has shown that it can work
+along the same lines as the divine will, that the two can co-operate,
+and that where the lower reaches its limit, the higher can step in and
+perfect the work.
+
+From the historian's point of view the monothelite controversy is quite
+distinct from the monophysite.  So we need only take a glance at it
+here.  It originated in an attempt to win back the monophysites to the
+orthodox communion by a doctrinal compromise.  The emperor Heraclius
+endeavoured to unite catholic and monophysite on the basis of the
+formula, "two natures with one will and operation."  That formula will
+not bear analysis, and the emperor's attempt to use it as an eirenicon
+was a complete failure.  Imperial pressure induced a few monophysites
+to modify their doctrine so far as to admit "one theandric operation;"
+but the concession of "one will" from the orthodox side failed to win
+from the monophysites the expected concession of "two natures."  The
+monophysites were quite consistent here.  To deny will of nature is an
+elementary mistake in psychology.  Only a tyro in introspection will
+ascribe will directly to personality.  A one-willed two-natured
+personality is little short of a psychological monstrosity.  An attempt
+to rally Christendom round such a figure was bound to fail.  The only
+lasting result of the emperor's activity was the formation of a new
+sect, the Maronites.
+
+
+
+THE DUALITY OF CHRIST'S EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE
+
+We come now to the third element in the human spirit.  It is only in
+modern psychology that feeling has secured recognition as a distinct
+constituent of man's nature; so it is not surprising that the question
+as to its position in the incarnate Christ was not raised in former
+days.  Now, however, the psychology of feeling has come into its own,
+and it has become important to consider whether in this particular,
+too, Christ shared our human experience.  Here, again, the argument for
+maintaining the duality of Christ's emotional experience is twofold.
+It follows, on the one hand, from the duality of the other parts of His
+nature; and, on the other hand, it is proved by the facts of His life
+as recorded in the gospels.
+
+Human nature involves feeling, and two natures involve two universes of
+feeling.  Divine personality cannot be conceived as devoid of feeling.
+With men feeling lies in the depths of being; it is the dynamic of
+life.  Feeling is the inner reflex of acts of thought and will.  It
+invariably accompanies cognition and volition.  If thought and will be
+attributed to the supreme being, the attribute of feeling cannot be
+left out.  When the God in Christ acted, divine feeling accompanied the
+act.
+
+This surmise is proved correct on reference to the records of His life.
+We find there two distinct emotional zones.  Christ has all the
+blameless feelings natural to man.  There are in Him the feelings
+accompanying sensation; physical pleasure and pain, hunger, thirst,
+weariness, and, in addition, the higher grades of feeling, aesthetic,
+sympathetic, and ethical.  He experienced wonder, surprise, righteous
+anger, the sublime, joy and love.  A life rich in emotion was the life
+of the Man Christ Jesus.  When, however, we look more closely into His
+experience, we catch glimpses of feeling such as no man could know.  We
+see there transcendent passion, great sorrow, great joy, so great that
+they would break a human heart.  We may instance the deep emotion
+accompanying His resolve to go to meet His fate at Jerusalem, the
+rejoicing in spirit at the success of the apostles' mission, His Agony
+and His universal love.
+
+The monophysites could not recognise this duality in Christ's emotional
+nature.  Hunger and thirst, and even the higher human feelings they
+considered derogatory to the Son of God.  Even when they admitted that
+He suffered, they threw a veil of mystery over His sufferings.  They
+idealised the Passion.  They made it seem as if His flesh was
+privileged, as if His omnipotence excused Him from the emotional
+experiences of humanity.
+
+
+
+SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER
+
+We have examined the doctrine of one nature, and exposed its chief
+consequences.  We have considered its effects in respect of the deity
+of Christ and in respect of His manhood.  We have applied the doctrine
+to the human nature as a whole, and to the several parts that compose
+it.  The result of the examination may be summarised in brief.
+Monophysitism destroys what is divine in the deity and what is human in
+the humanity.  It offers to Christians a Christ who is not sufficiently
+above man to be able to help them by His power, nor sufficiently man to
+be able to help them by His sympathy.  The monophysite Christ is
+neither very God nor very man, but a composition in which all traces of
+the original entities are lost to view.
+
+
+
+[1] "The Chronicle of Zachariah of Mitylene," translated by Hamilton
+and Brooks, chap. iii. p. 46.
+
+[2] This addition to the Trisagion was officially condemned at the
+close of the 7th century owing to its monophysite associations.
+
+[3] "Chronicle of Zachariah of Mitylene," translated by Hamilton and
+Brooks, ii. 2, p. 21.
+
+[4] The question of Justinian's orthodoxy has been debated by Bury and
+Hutton.  See _Guardian_, March 4th and April 15th, 1896.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV
+
+THE ETHOS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+
+Monophysitism originated in a monastery.  Eutyches, "the father of the
+monophysites," was a monk.  The monastic temperament is peculiarly
+susceptible to this heresy, and the monastic element has always been
+dominant in the monophysite churches.  The cloister is the natural
+habitat of the doctrine of the one nature.  Monasticism is applied
+monism.  If the world's existence be a sham, if its value compared with
+God be negligible, it becomes a religious duty to avoid all influences
+that heighten the illusion of the world's real existence and intrinsic
+value.  The monist, like the monk, must renounce all secular interests
+and "go out of the world."  The path of renunciation had an additional
+claim on the Christological monist.  In his universal ideal, as
+manifested in time, the human elements were sublimated into the divine.
+Consequently his ideal of conduct imposed a negative attitude towards
+the world and a merging of his ego in the universal spirit.  These are
+the ruling elements in the spirit of the cloister, and these are the
+characteristics of the monophysite ethos.
+
+Those men, to whom God is the sum of all reality and the world merely a
+cosmic shadow, regard worship as the sole worthy activity of the human
+spirit.  In worship union with God is sought, a union so close that the
+personality of the worshipper is absorbed into the being of the
+worshipped.  His experience of God is so intimate that his experience
+of the world is reduced to insignificance.  As an overpowering human
+love welds two beings into one, and identifies their thoughts, wills,
+springs of action and even feelings, so the _amor dei_ identifies man
+with God and makes possible a deification of humanity.  Deeply
+religious natures in all ages have heard this mystic call.  To lose
+their ego in the divine spirit is the height of their religious
+ambition.  The conception is lofty, but it is not the Christian ideal
+of life and duty.
+
+Mysticism and monophysitism are twin systems.  Both are religious
+phases of pantheism.  As, to the intellect, acosmism is the corollary
+of pantheism, so, to the heart, asceticism follows from mysticism.
+Whether conceived in terms of existence or of value, the world for the
+mystic is an obstacle to the _unio mystica_.  It snares the mind
+through the senses and creates a fictitious -appearance of solid
+reality in sensuous objects.  It makes pretensions to goodness and
+attaches to itself a spurious value.  The only remedy is self-denial,
+denial of existence to the world, denial of credence to the senses,
+denial of gratification to the passions, desires, and inclinations.
+The monophysites were mystics.  They were the rigorists of the eastern
+church.  They formed the "no compromise" party.  They stood for a
+thorough-going renunciation of the world and the flesh.  Though they
+did not officially lay down the inherent evil of matter, Manicheanism
+is latent in their system.  They did not explicitly identify matter
+with the spirit of evil, but they had the spiritual man's suspicion of
+matter and his contempt for the body of the flesh.  Abstinence,
+mortification of the flesh, and all ascetic practices flourished in
+their communion.  Art and culture were suspect; they had no eye for
+natural beauty.  Some of their hymn-writers possessed considerable
+poetic taste; but poetry was discouraged by their leaders.  Several of
+the extant letters of Severus of Antioch show that that patriarch did
+his best to banish that art from his church.  His attitude may be
+gathered from the following quotation.[1]  "As to Martyrius, the poet,
+... I wish you to know that he is a trouble to me and a nuisance.
+Indeed in the case of the others also who follow the same profession,
+and were enrolled in the holy clergy of the Church that is with us, I
+have debarred them from practising such poetry; and I am taking much
+trouble to sever this theatrical pursuit from ecclesiastical gravity
+and modesty, 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
+fornication, and carrying them to bestial passions."  The result of
+this asceticism was a jaundiced and inhuman outlook on life.  There was
+much piety among the monophysites, but it was confined to a narrow
+channel.  Their zeal for purity of doctrine amounted to fanaticism;
+their hatred of the Nestorian and of the Melchite at times reached a
+white heat.  Toleration was almost unknown in their communion.
+
+The claims of humanity appeal less to a monophysite than to other
+Christians.  He places all life's values in the other world.  He has no
+motive for trying to ameliorate the lot of his fellow-men.  Social
+service has to him little or no divine sanction or religious value.  We
+are speaking only of general tendencies.  No follower of Christ,
+however perverted his views, could be totally indifferent to the
+welfare of other men; but it came natural to the monophysite to think
+that it does not matter much how a man lives in this world of shadows,
+provided he holds communion with the world of unseen realities.  The
+same motive accounts for the rapid decline of missionary activity in
+their communion.  The Nestorians were far more active propagandists.
+Worship is a very high type of service; but worship becomes selfish and
+sickens into sentiment, if it neglects the inspiring tonic of contact
+with human need.  The monophysite Christology encouraged that form of
+self-sacrifice, whose goal is Nirvana, which lapses lazily into the
+cosmic soul and loses itself there in contemplation and ecstasy.  It
+supplies no motive for that finer piety which manifests itself in
+ethical endeavour and practical philanthropy.  His Christ had not
+partaken of the cup of suffering.  His Christ's advance to human
+perfection was illusory.  So the monophysite could not look for the
+sympathy of Christ in his own struggles, nor could he appeal to
+Christ's example in respect of works of human charity.  Monophysitism
+considers only the religious nature of man, and takes no account of his
+other needs.  We must therefore characterise the system as unsocial,
+unlovely, unsympathetic.
+
+The uncompromising attitude of the individual monophysites was
+reflected in their ecclesiastical polity.  We cannot but admire their
+sturdy independence.  The monophysite church stood for freedom from
+state control.  Her principles were the traditional principles of the
+Alexandrian see.  Alexandria would not truckle to Constantinople, nor
+let religion subserve imperial policy.  She would allow the catholic
+party to be Melchites (King's men) and to reap all the temporal
+advantages accruing to the established church.  In this matter the
+monophysites took a narrow view; but their narrowness evinces their
+piety.  They felt the evils attendant on Constantine's grand
+settlement, and they made their ill-judged protest.  They made it for
+no unworthy motive.  There are always such thinkers in the church.  A
+spiritual enthusiast despises the outward dignity that the church gains
+from an alliance with the State, and is often blind to the spiritual
+benefits conferred on the nation by that alliance, while he
+concentrates his gaze on incidental evils.  To connect with Christology
+such an attitude towards the principle of Establishment may seem forced
+at first sight.  The connection, however, exists.  Independence of the
+temporal power is symptomatic with that unworldliness which, as we have
+shown above, characterises monophysitism.  Its adherents paid no
+respect to the human as such.  They attached no value to merely human
+institutions, and made no attempt to see or foster the divine that is
+in them.  The argument that because the State is a human institution it
+should have no voice in ecclesiastical policy is typically monophysite;
+it is the argument of one who could draw no inspiration from the human
+life of the Son of God.
+
+Mysticism and rationalism have much in common.  They both are elements
+in the mental composition of almost every serious thinker.  The
+sterility of logic often drives him to seek a higher and surer
+instrument of knowledge.  So there is no inconsistency in further
+characterising the monophysites as rationalists.  The intellectuals of
+the eastern church were found mostly in their communion.  Theirs was
+the formal logic point of view.  Christ, they urged, was one and not
+two; therefore His nature was one and not two.  They could not see that
+He was both.  In Bergsonian language, they used exclusively mechanical
+categories.  Intelligence, an instrument formed by contact with matter,
+destined for action upon matter, they used on a supra-material subject.
+Their thinkers were highly trained logicians; they revelled in abstract
+argument; theirs was a cold intellectual metaphysic, unwarmed by flesh
+and blood empiricism.
+
+Their narrow outlook on life, their religious zeal and their
+rationalist philosophy combined to produce in them sectarianism of an
+extreme type.  Party spirit ran high among them.  They fought the
+catholics; they fought the Nestorians; they fought one another.  The
+list of schisms that occurred in their communion is of amazing length.
+The letters of Severus of Antioch make sad reading.  They show us that
+the patriarch had constantly to interfere in cases of disputed
+succession to bishoprics.  At almost every vacancy in the provincial
+dioceses there were parties formed each with their own nominee, ready
+to schismatise if they could not secure recognition and consecration
+for him.  It is evident that monophysitism does not foster the
+generous, tolerant, humane virtues of Christianity.  It is the creed of
+monks, mystics, and intellectualists.
+
+
+
+[1] E. W. Brooks, "Select Letters of Severus of Antioch," vol. ii. pp.
+88, 89.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V
+
+MONOPHYSITISM AND MODERN PSYCHOLOGY
+
+Christology divorced from empirical psychology is a barren science.
+Abstract discussions about person, nature and union of natures soon
+degenerate into logomachies.  If personality is a psychic entity, and
+nature another distinct psychic entity, then the question at issue
+between diphysite and monophysite is worth debating.  If they are
+concepts merely, the debate is hollow and of purely academic interest.
+A study of psychology clothes the dry bones with flesh.  It puts life
+and meaning into these abstractions.  It shows that they represent
+entities, that something corresponding to the terms "person" and
+"nature" is actually part of the being of every man, and that therefore
+their existence in Christ is a proper and practical subject for
+investigation.  In so doing psychology provides the _rationale_ of the
+Christological controversies.  It justifies the church in her
+determined adherence to the precise expression of the truth.  No
+Christian with powers of introspection, who can distinguish in his own
+being personality and nature, can be indifferent to the Christological
+problem.  The problem is one of fact, not theory.  The terms and the
+formula are only of importance as expressing or failing to express the
+true facts of Christ's being.  In a word, the psychology of the central
+figure of human history is the matter at issue.
+
+Reference to psychological fact is what one misses in the records of
+the old controversies.  The disputes read as if they were about
+shadows.  No doubt that was often the case.  Catholics and
+non-Catholics were often agreed as to the substance of belief, while
+owing to their devotion to words and formulae the agreement went
+unrecognised.  Had the disputants made clear to themselves and to each
+other what they meant by their abstract terms, had they translated them
+into their concrete psychological equivalents, heresy and schism would
+have been less frequent.  It was, however, almost impossible for them
+to do so, because in their day theology was far more highly developed
+than psychology.  Systematic observation of the workings of spirit was
+almost unknown.  There existed no science of psychology as we know it.
+No clear notions attached to the terms "person" and "nature."  They
+represented abstractions necessary to discursive reason rather than
+concrete psychic facts.  All parties shared this defect.  Among
+catholics and Nestorians as well as among monophysites knowledge of the
+constituents of human nature was of the most rudimentary character.
+The catholic party, however, by keeping close to the facts recorded in
+the gospels, achieved a Christological formula that is psychologically
+intelligible; while the heretical parties were led by their
+preconceived opinions to fashion a Christ, whose features are
+unrecognisable as God or man, a psychological monstrosity.
+
+
+
+BERGSON'S THEORIES THROW LIGHT ON CHRISTOLOGY
+
+Without claiming finality for the findings of modern psychology, we can
+consider some results of the science as established.  They are
+sufficiently well established, at any rate, to provide a starting-point
+for our investigation.  In particular the brilliant observations and
+theories of M. Bergson throw, so it seems to the writer, a flood of
+light on Christology.  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 fallacy.  These key
+doctrines are, first, the interpenetration of psychic states, and,
+second, the distinction between deep-seated and superficial
+consciousness.
+
+
+
+BERGSON'S THEORY OF THE INTERPENETRATION OF PSYCHIC STATES
+
+It is, says Bergson, characteristic of psychic states that they do not,
+like material things remain external to one another.  They
+inter-penetrate.  Cut up by human intelligence into discrete elements,
+in their own nature they remain a continuum.  States of mind appear
+successive and external to one another, because age-long association
+with matter has accustomed men to material modes of thought.  Man's
+intelligence is a by-product of activity.  For purposes of action it is
+the externality of things that matters.  The inner connection is
+relatively unimportant.  Men act with precision on matter, because
+perception cuts up the continuum of matter into bodies, defined bodies
+no two of which can occupy the same space.  Intelligence originating
+thus by contact with matter naturally prefers mechanical categories.
+These categories applicable to matter when applied to higher forms of
+existence mislead.  We naturally conceive psychic states as external to
+one another, and their interpenetration seems an abnormality.  At this
+stage of thought experience is pictured as a line of indefinite length,
+infinitely divisible, whose divisions correspond to the moments of
+consciousness.  This spatial picture of mind is misleading in many
+ways, not the least in that it can offer no reasonable theory of the
+subconscious.  Thinkers who materialise mental experience have no room
+in their theory for the sub-conscious.  It is for them bare
+non-consciousness, a psychic vacuum.  When, however, we start from this
+unique characteristic, that mind possesses, of remaining one and
+indivisible throughout the greatest appearance of diversity, the
+sub-conscious falls naturally into the scheme.  No part of our
+experience perishes.  It is essentially self-perpetuating memory.  The
+needs of action relegate the greater portion of it to the
+sub-conscious, but it is there, always linked to our conscious
+experience, and only awaiting the occasion to emerge into the full
+light of consciousness.  Past penetrates into the present.  One portion
+of our present penetrates into the other portions.  Conscious and
+unconscious, past and present, combine to form one wonderful whole.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM IGNORES THE DUALITY IN CHRIST'S EXPERIENCE
+
+Such in outline is Bergson's theory of the interpenetration of psychic
+states.  If this psychology be adopted, the abstract character of the
+catholic doctrine of Christ's being in large measure disappears.  It
+becomes easy to conceive the interpenetration of two natures in one
+Christ.  Further, the Bergsonian psychology furnishes a standpoint from
+which criticism of monophysitism is easy.  Psychology at the
+monophysite stage of thought conceives the moments of Christ's
+consciousness in their mutual externality; they follow each other as do
+the ticks of a clock.  They are discrete elements strung along on a
+hypothetical ego.  Christ's experience is conceived as unilinear.  All
+that He did, suffered and thought is regarded as having taken place on
+one and the same plane of experience.  This psychology has no room for
+another plane of experience.  It has no room for a positive
+sub-consciousness.  Consequently that one plane must be the one divine
+nature, which, as the monophysites taught, absorbed the human.
+
+The one-nature theory is not true to the facts.  It overlooks the
+complexity of Christ's experience.  His experiences lie on two
+different planes.  He has different universes of thought, different
+actuating wills and sets of feelings.  Christ is not in one nature.
+The phases of His consciousness are twofold.  His experiences fall
+naturally into two groups.  While one group is in consciousness, the
+other is below the level of consciousness.  Now the human experiences,
+now the divine, are uppermost.  Both are always present.  Life under
+such conditions is inconceivable, unless full recognition be accorded
+to the fact that conscious states interpermeate.  If each state fall
+outside the other, and consciousness be a chain of successive ideas or
+emotions, a twofold nature within the one experience is meaningless.
+The view of conscious states as discrete leads inevitably to
+determinism.  The place of one state in the chain is conditioned by its
+predecessor.  There is no room for the spontaneity and the creative
+power which characterise conscious life.  Associationism cannot
+countenance the unforeseen and incalculable.  So it is out of sympathy
+with Christian psychology.  A function of the divine in Christ is to
+introduce the element of the unforeseen and incalculable into His
+normal and human experience.  The Bergsonian psychology thus supplies
+an intellectual basis for belief in the possibility of two natures in
+Christ.  When ideas are regarded as psychic entities whose essential
+property is mutual penetration, the ground is prepared for the catholic
+formula.  Where this truth is not recognised, there arises inevitably
+the tendency to assert that Christ had and must have had but one
+uniform level of experience, and that assertion is the essence of
+monophysitism.
+
+
+
+BERGSON'S THEORY OF DEEP-SEATED AND SUPERFICIAL STATES
+
+Bergson's psychology throws further light on a central doctrine of
+catholic Christology.  It not only makes conceivable, as we have shown
+above, the co-existence of the two natures, but it lends support to the
+belief in the independent reality of His personality.  Person and
+nature of Christology find their modern equivalents in the Bergsonian
+"deep-seated" and "superficial" states of consciousness.  Bergson draws
+a sharp line of distinction between these two.  The deep-seated states
+constitute the kernel of being.  They are the man's existence turned
+inwards.  They are independent, free, creative.  They are a unifying
+force.  Always present, they only rarely make their presence felt.
+Only at moments of deep experience do they interfere with the surface
+self.  The superficial states form the outward-regarding existence of
+man.  They represent consciousness relaxed into moments of clock-time,
+moments more or less external to one another.  They are not truly free.
+They are conditioned by the material environment.  Whatever be thought
+of the metaphysic of this system, recognition cannot be refused to that
+part of it which rests on the solid foundation of psychological fact.
+Self-analysis discloses a two-fold experience in man.  The stream of
+his life contains both current and undercurrent.  The current is
+nature, the under-current personality.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM ANNULS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIVINE PERSON AND DIVINE
+NATURE
+
+This distinction is of paramount importance in Christology.  Diphysites
+hold fast to the distinction.  They maintain a human nature in Christ,
+but they do not humanise His person.  The person cannot be humanised.
+It remained divine after the incarnation, as it was before.  Though He
+became man, the depth of His being was unchanged.  The rain from heaven
+and the waters from the earthly spring mingle in one stream, but
+beneath the surface the deep undercurrent of being flows on unchanged.
+The monophysite in effect abandons this distinction.  This is where his
+psychology is most seriously at fault.  He confuses person and nature.
+Deep-seated and superficial states of soul are all one to him.  He does
+not see the duality in the being of his fellow-men; so he cannot see it
+in the ideal man.  This is a consequence of monophysitism which has not
+attracted the attention of theologians, and which the monophysite
+himself did not intend.  The doctrine that rules out the human nature
+of Christ rules out the divine nature also, by confusing it with the
+personality.  The monophysite affirms the divine nature while denying
+the human.  Such affirmation is purely verbal.  It is completely void
+of significance.  The contrast between the divine and human natures is
+needed to throw personality into relief.  Take away the human nature,
+and that contrast disappears, and with it goes the distinction between
+divine person and divine nature.  Then, instead of a transcendent
+personality in whose portrait divine and human features are distinctly
+limned, we have a blur.  Where God planned a unique though intelligible
+psychic harmony, we find a psychic medley.
+
+
+
+CONSCIOUSNESS OF PERSONALITY PRODUCED BY A VIOLENT CHANGE OF OCCUPATION
+
+This assertion is justified by an appeal to human experience.  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 others.  For instance, a sudden and violent change of
+occupation establishes personality as a distinct entity.  The civilian
+turns soldier.  Almost immediately all parts of his nature are
+affected.  He feels the development, as it were, of a second nature
+within him.  His faculties are transformed.  He enters a new universe
+of thought.  His range of knowledge narrows in one direction, widens in
+another.  His volitional nature is altered.  His will narrows in scope,
+but increases in intensity.  Nor does his emotional nature escape the
+change.  Aesthetic values are reversed.  He no longer feels pleasure
+and pain at the old objects.  Physical desires play a much larger part
+in his life, and he loses taste for intellectual pleasures.  The
+soldier returns to civilian life and, as it were, with his civilian
+attire he resumes his former nature, and all his old thoughts and
+feelings and impulses come flooding back.  Such an experience is of
+considerable psychological interest.  It exemplifies the
+interpenetration of different states of thought and activity.  The
+contrasts bring home to a man the fact that his spirit is a synthesis
+of heterogeneous elements.  They force him back on himself.  They rouse
+in him the dormant sense of personal being.  It is the apprehension of
+strong contrast in his experience of himself, the apprehension of the
+plurality of his being, that accentuates the deep-lying unity.  The
+more violent the change in the walks of life, the clearer becomes the
+concept of the continuity.  Civilian or soldier, the man, the person is
+the same.
+
+Personality is thrown into relief not only by change of occupation, but
+also by moral contrasts.  Conflicting passions, opposing motives and
+internal debate serve to make a man realise himself.  Strong
+personalities are often those in whom the conflict between good and
+evil is most acute.  It is the very opposition of natures which brings
+out the personal element into the full light of conscious recognition.
+
+We must now examine human personality in greater detail; we must
+indicate its functions and show how it differs from human nature.  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 monophysite.
+
+
+
+KANT AND THE DUAL CHARACTER OF THE EGO
+
+Kant distinguished the noumenal from the phenomenal ego.  The former he
+regarded as an idea, the latter as a reality in time.  The distinction
+corresponds roughly to that between person and nature.  The phenomenal
+ego is the nature of man.  It bears the brunt of the struggle of life.
+The noumenal ego is the transcendent personality of the individual--an
+idea which pure reason necessarily forms and which practical reason
+establishes.  Though the Kantian philosophy no longer carries
+conviction, it is interesting to see that Kant felt and admitted a
+double current in man's being.  He recognised that the superficial self
+is not the true being of the man.  It is not necessary, however, to go
+as far as Kant went.  We need not with him relegate the core of
+personal being to the realm of idea.  Granted that personality is not
+part of our normal experience as nature is, there are times when the
+depths of being are stirred.  Moments of crisis drive a man deeper than
+will and thought and even feeling, and make him conscious of himself as
+a psychic unity, permanent and of infinite value.  Personality normally
+remains in the recesses of the subconscious.  It is the hidden basis of
+life.  It is active, though its activities are for the most part
+underground.  It does not, however, lie altogether outside the ken of
+consciousness.  It may be experienced; it is experienced when great
+emotion rends the surface fabric of the man and discloses the true self.
+
+
+
+HUMAN PERSONALITY AND HUMAN NATURE
+
+What is human personality?  It is a psychic entity whose most important
+function is to unify the parts of a man's nature.  It is the principle
+of unity and the instrument of unity.  A man's thought, will and
+feeling are distinct and real entities.  His intelligence takes various
+forms from perception to abstract thought; it may be directed to
+outward things, to thoughts of things, or to pure idea.  He wills many
+things, and wills them in different modes and with varying degrees of
+intensity.  A wide range of feeling is found in him, from physical to
+mental, from organic to ideal feeling.  His nature is tripartite.  Each
+part admits of variation in itself and in its interaction with the
+other parts.  Each of the three expresses the man at the moment.  No
+one of the three gives the whole account of his being.  Nor do the
+three taken together.  Though his nature is tripartite the man himself
+cannot be resolved into component parts.  He has his faculties and
+states, but he is more than their sum.  He may lose himself in thought
+or activity, or abandon himself to feeling, but when he is fulfilling
+his true function, when he is most himself, all parts of his nature are
+concentrated to a point.  Partial activity of thought, will, or feeling
+is then replaced by activity of the personality.  Personality is the
+synthetic unity of all parts of a man's nature.  It has the wonderful
+power of compressing to a point a medley of psychic elements.  Moods
+and memories, perceptions and ideas, wishes and purposes, it tensions
+them all up, merges them and expresses them in characteristic acts
+representative of the man.
+
+Personality differs from nature also in respect of relation to
+environment.  It is relatively independent of circumstances.  Habit and
+education mould the nature, but if they touch the person they do so
+only indirectly.  The nature must be deeply affected before a change in
+the person is registered.  Personality is not synonomous with inherited
+disposition; but it bears a similar relation to nature as inherited
+disposition does to acquired habit.  It is to nature what character is
+to action.  It is to nature what in Weismann's theory the germ plasm is
+to the somatic cell.  Changes in it are mediated by nature and are
+almost imperceptible in a life time.
+
+Again, nature is the superficies of the soul.  It is the part that
+comes in contact with the world of things and people.  A man's nature
+is what he is for other people; what he is in and for himself alone is
+personality.  There is a substance or self-existence of the psychic
+states.  Thought, will and feeling have all and each an external
+reference.  The internal reference of the whole is the core of being.
+Our perception of personality in other people is a subtle thing.  In
+the ordinary give and take of life we are not aware of it.  It is when
+we realise the subject as a self-existent unity that we recognise
+personality.  We judge a man's nature by his thought or will or
+feelings as conveyed through the ordinary channels of communication.
+Personality is felt.  It is a magnetism that influences, but remains
+inarticulate.
+
+Person and nature differ also in respect of relation to the body.  The
+co-existence of heterogeneous natures in the same body is a fact of
+experience.  Different universes of thought, different levels of will
+and feeling can be lodged in one organism.  The higher the development
+of the individual, the more clearly marked is the duality or plurality
+of nature.  It is otherwise with personality.  In normal cases no two
+personalities can tenant the one body.  The unity of the organism is
+the outward expression and guarantee of the unity of the person.  There
+are of course pathological cases which form exceptions to this rule.
+Such cases, however, only serve to emphasise the distinction between
+person and nature.  In cases of dual personality the occupancy of the
+one body is not simultaneous.  Jekyll alternates with Hyde.  Dual
+personality is a totally different phenomenon from duality of nature.
+Duality of nature is relatively superficial.  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 entity.
+
+Personality then is the synthetic principle in man's being.  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
+experience.  The student of Christology welcomes this account of
+personality, but he requires more.  He seeks a parallel for the union
+of two whole and perfect natures.  He demands some reason for holding
+the central dogma of the incarnation to be intelligible and probable.
+The next step in the argument accordingly is to ask, "Why limit the
+synthetic power of personality?"  If personality can synthesise parts
+of a nature, why should it not also synthesise natures?  If human
+personality can unify such heterogeneous psychic elements as thought,
+will and feeling, and present them as a harmonious whole, is it not
+credible that divine personality should carry the synthesis a step
+further and harmonise in one being the thoughts, wills and feelings of
+God and man?  The hypostatic union of natures in Christ is a phenomenon
+not psychologically improbable, and one which can be paralleled from
+human experience.  There is in man what is tantamount to a conjunction
+of the two natures.  Man is rather diphysite than monophysite.  We
+pointed out above the extensive modifications that can be produced in a
+man's nature by environment.  There is in him a deeper duality which we
+can only characterise as an association of divine and human.  Man is an
+inhabitant of the earth, of earthly descent and finite destiny; yet the
+divine is not totally foreign to him.  He has hopes of heaven, moments
+of supraconsciousness, at times vision, resolve and emotion that are
+supra-normal.  The divine is an element in him.  It is more than an
+aspect of his nature.  Its influence operates often in opposition to
+the human element.  He is, as Bergson puts it, at the meeting-point of
+the upward and the downward currents.  He can know God, can do the will
+of God, can be filled with the love of God.  Here are the three factors
+of his nature, raised to a higher power.  His experience may lie and
+often does lie on two planes.  He is "double lived in regions new."
+
+In applying this human analogy to the ideal man caution is necessary.
+The duality of natures is a fact in both cases, but there is one
+essential difference.  The personal substratum of the natures in one
+case is human, in the other case divine.  In man the divine element is
+part of his nature, but not part of his person.  The ego remains human
+through all spiritual development.  "The best of saints is a saint at
+the best."  The secondary element in him is a fact, but it is part of
+his nature, not of his person.  It is otherwise in the case of Christ.
+He came from the ideal world and returned there.  The background of his
+experience was and is divine.  The secondary element in Him was the
+human, the primary the divine.  He shared man's experience and shared
+it really, but it did not form part of the core of His being.  When He
+thought or willed or felt as a man, it was a _kénôsis_, a limiting of
+his natural mode of self-expression.  Divine and human are both present
+in the experience of Christ and of mankind, but with this
+difference--man rises to the divine; Christ condescended to the human.
+
+
+
+VALUE OF BERGSON'S PSYCHOLOGY TO ORTHODOX CHRISTOLOGY
+
+Person and nature are then real and distinct psychic entities.  They
+are real alike in God and man.  The distinction between them is not
+artificial or verbal; it is perhaps elusive, but it is genuine and
+capable of proof from experience.  The synthetic faculty of personality
+manifests itself in uniting without confusing, first, parts of the
+nature, second, entire natures.  These theses supply what is requisite
+for an intelligent appreciation of Christology.  Without them
+Christology is a battle of shadows; with them it becomes a practical
+problem of first importance for religious minds.  The psychology which
+justifies orthodox Christology is that which proclaims the
+interpenetration of psychic states, and which distinguishes between the
+surface states of a relaxed consciousness, and the deep-seated states
+which are ever present, but of which we are conscious only at moments
+of tension.
+
+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 man.  Human parallels make intelligible
+the co-existence of the two natures in the one person and the one body.
+What is normal in man is surely possible in the ideal man.  Heretical
+Christologies err in their psychology.  In Nestorian Christology Christ
+is presented as a dual personality, an abnormal association in one body
+of two distinct self-existent beings.  Thus a pathological case would
+be elevated to the rank of mankind's ideal.  The monophysite psychology
+plunges men into the opposite error.  An undiscriminating craving for
+unity among the phenomena of psychic life prevents any recognition of
+the dual character of experience.  Monophysitism is blind to the
+difference between person and nature because it places all psychic
+experiences on the one level.  Determined to find unity in its ideal,
+it seeks an inappropriate unity, the mathematical unity, the unity that
+excludes plurality.  To the monophysite the major part of the gospels
+is a sealed book, because the major part of the facts there recorded
+about Christ could not possibly have happened to a one-natured Christ.
+His human knowledge, normal, limited, progressive, His human will,
+natural, adequate to the human, inadequate to the superhuman task, his
+human feelings, his body consubstantial with ours are to the
+monophysite merely shadows or symbols or aspects of something greater.
+They are dwarfed into nothingness.  They are lost in the divine
+omniscience, omnipotence and transcendent love.
+
+
+
+
+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 attain.  He expects to
+find the solution of high moral and speculative problems in that union
+of divine and human.  The right faith is not easily reached.  It is an
+elusive prize.  There are conditions moral and intellectual attaching
+to its possession.  The moral conditions may take a lifetime to fulfil.
+Even on its intellectual side faith is a long process.  No sudden
+mental grasp of the whole truth can be attained.  It dawns on the mind
+gradually.  The discipline of faith in the incarnation consists in a
+gradual and laborious advance from stage to stage.  The various stages
+are half-truths or inadequate conceptions of Christ.  They are
+objectified in the Christological heresies.  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-human."
+Certainly the subjective fancies of the heresiarchs do not provide the
+whole account.  There is something of the universal in these heresies.
+They are in the main current of religious thought.  As the chief
+historic systems of philosophy repeat themselves in each generation and
+in the intellectual development of individual thinkers, so do the
+Christological heresies recur.  There is considerable truth in Hegel's
+contentions that the development of a man's mind is one with that of
+the general consciousness, that the individual reason is a miniature of
+the universal reason, that in fact the history of a philosopher's
+thinking is an abstract of the history of philosophy.  The same holds
+good in the field of religious thought.  Without much artificiality,
+without forcing the facts, a rational scheme of the Christological
+heresies might be drawn up.  They might be pictorially represented as
+the rungs of a ladder, which the truth-seeking mind scales rung by
+rung, pausing at the lower phases of Christological thought, and then
+resuming the ascent till the highest truth is attained.  The instrument
+of thought is much the same in all centuries; the objects of thought
+vary very little; so it is intelligible that the products of
+speculative and religious thought should remain the same to-day as in
+the fifth century.
+
+
+
+THE EXISTENCE OF MODERN MONOPHYSITISM
+
+Is there such a thing as modern monophysitism?  To this question the
+preceding paragraph supplies the answer, "There must be."  Heretical
+tendencies will be found in the Christian community in every
+generation, and the religious thought of individual Christians will
+pass through heretical phases.  Such heresy is rather an intellectual
+than a moral fault; but the possibility of being the heirs, without
+knowing it, 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 orthodoxy.  Not a few
+leaders of religious thought, in intention orthodox, in fact remain
+monophysites, through inability to analyse their beliefs or through a
+false sense of security, founded on the opinion that the age of heresy
+is past.
+
+It is commonly supposed that belief in the deity of Christ constitutes
+Christianity.  That supposition is wrong.  Arius was not the only
+heresiarch.  To transcend the Arian standpoint is only the first step
+in the long discipline of faith.  There are other heresies, other
+half-truths scarcely less pernicious than the Arian.  The recognition
+of Christ as God represents a great intellectual and moral advance, and
+is the first essential step in religion; but to rest content with the
+taking of that step is to remain on the lowest rung of the ladder of
+faith.  It is little use to form a lofty conception of Christ, if in
+doing so we insulate Him from the world of things and souls.  That is
+what monophysitism does, and because disguised monophysitism is
+prevalent in the church to-day, Christianity's grip is weak and the
+fire of devotion low.
+
+We may picture faith as a battlefield.  Doubt is the enemy entrenched
+in depth.  Arianism holds the first line of trenches.  Echeloned behind
+Arianism are the other heresies in a network of fortified redoubts,
+strong points and support trenches.  The church militant must make the
+furthest line her objective.  If her advance stays at an intermediate
+point, she is exposed to cross-fire from the support trenches of the
+subsidiary heresies.  The ground gained by the first assault proves
+untenable.  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 doctrine.
+
+A thorough and systematic advance of this sort was made by the orthodox
+Christologians of the fifth century.  The campaign was fought and won
+then.  It has, however, to be fought anew in each generation and in the
+experience of individual thinkers.  Monophysitism is commonly regarded
+as a vagary of oriental thought, killed once and for all by a church
+council in the fifth century.  That is a superficial view.
+Monophysitism is a hydra growth, and no Hercules can be found to
+exterminate it.  It reappears in each succeeding age, in West as well
+as East.  The structure of the human intellect is such that, whenever
+men begin to investigate the being of Christ, the tendency to regard
+Him as one-natured is present.  The church of the fifth century exposed
+that doctrine; it was beyond her power to kill it.
+
+
+
+REASONS FOR THE PREVALENCE OF MONOPHYSITISM
+
+Monophysitism is in our midst undetected to-day.  It is not hard to
+account for its prevalence.  The clergy are for the most part unable to
+expound Christology, and the laity are impatient of exposition.
+Anything savouring of precise theology is at a discount.  So pulpit and
+pew conspire to foster the growth of the tares.  The "Athanasian" creed
+is in disrepute, and its statement of dogmatic Christology is involved
+in the discredit attaching to the damnatory clauses.  The clergy are
+perhaps rather glad to leave the subject alone.  They know it is a
+difficult subject, and they are afraid of burning their fingers.  The
+laity rarely hear any reference to the two natures of Christ.  If they
+do, they are not interested; they do not think that the question makes
+any difference to faith or practice.  The whole extent of the
+Christological knowledge possessed by the average churchman is
+comprised in the formula, "Christ is God and man."  He cannot apply the
+formula nor reconcile it with common sense.  He occasionally hears from
+the pulpit the phrase "God-man"; but it is a mere phrase to him; it is
+not translated for him into a language that he can understand.  So he
+registers the doctrine mentally as an impenetrable mystery and gives it
+no further attention, or perhaps turns away in disgust from the system
+whose central figure is so unintelligibly presented by its authorised
+exponents.  The bare statement that Christ is God and man, though true,
+is not adequate.  It carries no conviction to thinking minds to-day.
+The full definition of the council of Chalcedon should be published
+broadcast, and so studied by theologians in the light of modern
+psychology that they can present it as a reasonable dogma, intelligible
+to-day and touching modern life.
+
+In the absence of such teaching the spread of false, unbalanced or
+inadequate conceptions of what Christ was and of what He is is
+inevitable.  Our concern here is to exhibit those of a monophysite
+character.  Monophysite tendencies of the present day may be grouped
+according as they affect Christ's being or His work or Christian
+practice.  We propose to take them in that order.
+
+
+
+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 ways.  To its subtle influence is
+traceable the capital defect of modern presentations of Christ, namely,
+that they make no appeal to the outsider.  Christ is proclaimed as the
+solution of moral, social and industrial problems.  As a rule in such
+cases the name "Christ" is used as a synonym for Christian principles.
+Such appeals are addressed to the head; they do not touch the heart and
+fire the imagination; they do not kindle that personal devotion to the
+Man Christ Jesus which has always been the dynamic of the faith.  The
+historic Christ is not presented in a way that would appeal to the
+unconvinced.  Christian teaching is becoming more and more esoteric.
+In the language of Christology, a diphysite Christ is not preached.
+His human nature is kept in the background.  It is not portrayed in
+arresting colours.  If the apostles and apostolic men had preached the
+impersonal redeemer of modern religious thought, they would never have
+won the world for Christ.  Their imaginations and lives were fired by
+contact with a Man of flesh and blood.  So they presented a Christ
+whose true humanity appealed to His fellow-men.  They showed the gospel
+picture to an unbelieving world, and the world responded to its appeal.
+
+It is not easy to bridge the centuries and regain the apostles'
+standpoint, but until it is done the church's message will lack
+inspiration.  The phrase "the historic Christ" is commonly used, as if
+it covered the whole ground.  It is certainly serviceable as a protest
+against a bare logos theory of the incarnation, but in itself it is not
+adequate.  What requires emphasis is the humanity of the historic
+Christ.  Many Christian teachers purposely withhold this emphasis from
+fear of playing into the hands of Arians and Nestorians.  No doubt if
+pressed they would give intellectual assent to the dogma of the two
+natures, but they shrink from following it out to its consequences.
+There is a widespread feeling that it is irreverent to dwell on the
+fact that Christ was a real man.  A firm grasp of catholic Christology
+in its entirety is the cure for this squeamishness.  To obscure the
+fact of His Manhood is not the true reply to a denial of His Deity.  A
+true presentation of Christ must give full weight to the facts that He
+had a human body, human mind, human feelings and human will, that His
+body was in space normally subject to physical law, that His
+consciousness and subconsciousness conformed to psychic law.  Wherever
+a denial of these facts is found, there is monophysitism.  Wherever
+they are obscured or neglected, there are monophysite tendencies.
+
+
+
+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 death.  Monophysitism in
+undermining belief in the reality of Christ's manhood is weakening
+sympathy with His sufferings.  Calvary like Bethlehem has lost much of
+its appeal.  A classical comparison will illustrate this fact.  Plato's
+account of Socrates' last hour in the prison and of his drinking the
+hemlock is, I imagine, to many educated men far more moving than the
+story of the Passion and Death of Christ.  There is a curious
+similarity in the two tragedies that invites attention and comparison.
+Both sufferers were heroes and moral reformers, the victims of mistaken
+zeal on the part of religious authority.  Socrates died in a ripe age
+with his life work accomplished.  Jesus was cut off in His prime.
+Socrates' last hours were tranquil and his passing quick and easy.
+Jesus after shame and torture died a lingering death.  The dysthanasia
+of Jesus should, one would opine, make a stronger appeal to men's
+sympathies than does the euthanasia of Socrates.  Yet on the whole the
+reverse is the case.  The difference in the respective styles of the
+two narratives does not give the whole explanation.  It is true that
+the Phaedo is a work of fine art while the gospel story is a plain
+statement of fact.  The reason, however, for the difference in appeal
+goes deeper than literary style.  The reader of the Phaedo puts himself
+into the place of Socrates and suffers with him.  As we read the
+Passion of Christ there rises a barrier between us and the divine
+sufferer.  Unconsciously we say to ourselves, "Christ suffered, of
+course, but He did not suffer as we should have suffered in His place.
+His were not the real sufferings of a real man."
+
+If the passion of Christ and that of Socrates were weighed in the same
+balances, there would be less indifference to-day to the gospel story.
+Were Christ the Man realised as such, visualised, as other great men of
+history are visualised, among his followers, the hero worship that
+inspired the early church would revive.  What makes Christians
+indifferent to Christ's sufferings is not the lapse of centuries nor
+weakness of imagination but a subconscious monophysitism.  There is to
+most minds a haze of unreality overhanging the accounts of His life and
+death.  They forget that He shared human experience to the full.  They
+think of Him as doing things _rhêidíôs_ like the Homeric gods.  In
+point of fact, His great results were achieved only after long
+laborious exertion.  His was a life of strenuous human activity,
+physical and mental.  Even His miracles were accompanied by a physical
+throb of sympathy; virtue went out of Him.  Redemption made it
+necessary.  Enthusiastic devotion to a person must be grounded in
+community of experience.  It is the human touches in the drama of
+Christ's life that make the most powerful appeal to mankind.  Yet the
+human element is obscured, as a rule, in modern presentations of the
+gospel.  For spiritual minds it is comparatively easy to apprehend a
+divine Christ.  To apprehend a human Christ makes a larger call on
+their imagination and their sympathy.  Spiritual men are naturally
+monophysite in their thinking.  They shrink from the mental effort that
+diphysitism demands.  Their attention is focussed on Christ's
+superiority to human limitations.  They scarcely see the miracle of the
+human, and thus they miss the import of the divine miracle.  In the
+atmosphere of monophysitism mysticism thrives, but devotion decays.  We
+may instance the almost total disappearance of the crusading spirit.
+The Christ to whom our thoughts usually turn is an omnipresent ideal
+with no historical or local associations.  His birth-place and His
+country evoke only a lukewarm sentiment.  The church's year is
+neglected.  The historical facts of Christ's life are often regarded as
+of only minor importance.  Piety used to consist in personal loyalty to
+the Founder of a universal religion; it is now considered synonymous
+with obedience to the "golden rule."
+
+
+
+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 debated.  That debate showed how much uncertainty
+on Christological questions exists and how strong monophysite opinion
+still is.  In spite of Christ's own _dicta_, in spite of the dogma of
+two natures, denial of the limitation was widespread and persistent.
+To many devout minds it seems impious to speak of Christ's ignorance.
+This is a case in which the Chalcedonian definition is an invaluable
+guide.  If one brings to an examination of Christ's nature the
+preconceived notion of His omniscience, the doctrine of the limitation
+of His knowledge seems an outrage on belief; but if one approaches the
+question with the orthodox formula in mind, one is prepared to find
+that His cognitive faculties were perfectly human and humanly perfect.
+So we find it.  His knowledge and His faculties of knowledge on the
+lower plane of His experience were essentially the same as ours.  He
+thought in our categories.  He used our organon, perfect of its kind,
+but still a human organon.  As man, inevitably, He had thoughts
+uncognised; and such a mental state we call "ignorance."  His mind
+passed through stages of development as ours does.  Education widened
+His horizon, strengthened His faculties, and increased His knowledge.
+Advance in knowledge implies a prior state of relative ignorance.  The
+word "ignorance" as applied to Christ sounds very terrible; but
+investigation of its meaning robs it of its terrors.  We use the word
+in two senses.  On the one hand it may mean the absence of a thought,
+its absolute non-presence in consciousness.  On the other it may mean
+thought unrelated to experience, one whose implications are not or
+cannot be fully deduced, in fact, the incomplete cognition of an idea.
+In neither case does it involve imperfection in the instrument or moral
+fault.  On the contrary ignorance is a mark of the normal in cognition.
+If ignorance and limitation of knowledge were not found in Christ, we
+should be forced to agree with Apollinaris that the divine Logos had
+superseded His human intellect.
+
+Ignorance in so far as it is a positive attribute is far from being a
+mark of imperfection.  It is a true paradox that ignorance like
+obliviscence forms part of the process of human cognising.  Probably in
+the truth of things memory is of the essence of mind.  Thoughts
+naturally and spontaneously reproduce themselves.  The past of
+experience tends automatically to carry forward into the present.  The
+function of the brain then, or of a mental faculty intimately
+co-operating with the brain is to discriminate, to sift and select, to
+prolong into present consciousness what is of importance for action and
+to relegate the irrelevant to partial or total oblivion.  From this
+psychological standpoint ignorance and obliviscence are seen to be
+achievements of the intellect.  The presence of all facts in a human
+consciousness is unthinkable.  If it were possible, it would paralyse
+action.  If we exempt Christ from the law of ignorance and
+obliviscence, we _ipso facto_ dehumanise his cognition.  When we say
+that Jesus was ignorant of much scientific truth, or that his
+prescience was limited, we do not compromise His dignity.  We simply
+assert the naturalness of His intellect and the true humanity of that
+element of His nature.  To do otherwise, to claim omniscience for His
+human intellect is gross monophysitism.  His knowledge was deeper,
+surer, more penetrating than ours, because the light of His divine
+intuition streamed through the veil of sense and illumined the lower
+phases of intelligence.  This is an instance of the _communicatio
+idiomatum_.  The properties of the two natures act and react upon one
+another.  But we must make the distinction of natures our
+starting-point, or fusion will take place.  There must be _idiomata_
+first, or the _communicatio_ is meaningless.
+
+
+
+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 present.  It is scarcely possible to realise the
+present existence of a human Christ, unless the fact of His actual
+human existence in the first century of our era be grasped.  If He had
+but one nature on earth, He has but one nature now in heaven.  If the
+historic Christ was monophysite, so also is the Christ to whom we pray.
+In this consequence consists the seriousness of modern monophysitism.
+The present reality of His human nature is to-day even among His
+followers doubted, obscured, or forgotten.  Christ is to many spiritual
+minds merely an ideal personality, a summary of their own ethical
+ideals.  They perhaps regard Him as a disembodied spirit or mysterious
+influence.  They rarely attain the catholic standpoint and see the
+human nature as a psychic entity actually existent to-day.  At any rate
+the doctrine is not thought out to its consequences.  The "perpetual
+intercession" is, it is feared, little more than a phrase.  That Christ
+as man still intercedes for men is a verity not understood and only
+half appreciated.  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 pray.  The Church teaches that there
+is somewhere, in some transcendent form of existence, a being with
+perfect human mind, whose will in strength and scope is perfectly
+proportioned to His knowledge, whose feelings are in perfect mutual
+harmony, whose psychic nature finds outward expression in a glorified
+body; that this perfect being once walked this earth, and yet had and
+has the ground of His being in a divine personality.  Such a Christ the
+latent monophysitism of our thinking hides from our view.
+
+
+
+THE DOCTRINE OF SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION DUE TO MONOPHYSITISM
+
+The doctrines of Christ's person and of His work are intimately
+associated.  What He did depended on what He was.  Christology and
+Soteriology act and react upon each other.  If Christology is crippled,
+Soteriology goes lame.  Christ takes His stand in the centre of the
+cosmic process in virtue of His unique being.  In that He unites deity
+and humanity in His own person, He brought redemption within the reach
+of mankind.  His redemption of humanity was as definite a fact as His
+assumption of human nature.  Both to the Christian are objective
+historical facts; if either of them falls to the ground, so does the
+other; and with that collapse goes the purpose of creation and
+humanity's hope.  A docetic interpretation of the human nature entails
+a docetic view of redemption.  Monophysitism, as we have seen, casts
+doubts upon the reality of the sufferings and humanity of Christ; in so
+doing it compromises the work He accomplished.  Atonement ceases to be
+a cosmic transaction completed on Calvary, and becomes a subjective
+process.  Redemption is made into an attitude, or rather a change of
+attitude, on the part of the individual.  That Christ wrought a power
+and hope for man which man could not achieve for himself is not a
+familiar doctrine to-day.  Pain, not sin, is the great modern problem.
+The Cross is made to stand for sympathy, not for satisfaction.
+Salvation, achieved at a definite moment of history and conferred on
+believers of subsequent generations, rests for its foundations on the
+objective assumption of human nature by a divine person.  If the
+foundations be undermined, as monophysitism undermines them, the
+superstructure crumbles.  Redemption becomes improvement by effort and
+self-help, or a constant endeavour after a private ideal of conduct.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM LIMITS THE SCOPE OF REDEMPTION
+
+Monophysitism shows itself also in the modern tendency to narrow the
+scope of redemption.  Partial salvation is offered as a substitute for
+the salvation of the entire man.  This tendency is a natural result of
+narrowing the import of the incarnation.  It runs counter to orthodox
+Christology and the derivate doctrines.  A divine economy is traceable
+in God's dealings with men; there is nothing purposeless, nothing
+otiose in God's dispensation.  The Church's invariable answer to the
+Apollinarians was grounded in belief in this economy.  She argued that
+Christ could not redeem what He did not assume, and, conversely, that
+what He assumed He redeemed.  He assumed human nature in its entirety,
+thought, will, feeling and body; therefore not one of those elements of
+human nature lies outside the scope of redemption.  Monophysitism
+excludes some or all of those elements from the being of the incarnate
+Christ, and by so doing deprives the corresponding elements in man's
+nature of their rightful share in the benefit of redemption.
+
+The feeling that some parts of human nature are more fitted to survive
+than others is wide-spread to-day.  It is found within as well as
+without the Church.  We constantly read of the "survival factor."  The
+term implies the belief that at death part of the man's nature survives
+and part perishes.  There is, however, no general agreement as to which
+part constitutes the "survival factor."  The intellectualist pins his
+faith to the immortality of the reason.  He is content to let death
+deprive him of everything except the logical faculty.  For the aesthete
+beauty alone is eternal, and his hope for the future lies in the
+continuance of his aesthetic sense.  The materialist sees permanence
+only in the indestructibility of the ultimate physical constituents of
+his body.  The epigenesis of a spiritual body lies outside his horizon.
+The volitionist finds all the value of life in the moral nature.  For
+him the good will persists when all else is resolved into nothingness.
+Character alone, he says, survives the shock of death.  All these
+limited views of survival are symptoms of monophysite ways of thinking.
+The Christian, on the contrary, holds that what is redeemed _eo ipso_
+survives.  Whatever else is involved in redemption persistence
+certainly is included.  Monophysitism stands for a partial redemption;
+but to the orthodox who believe that Christ assumed human nature in its
+entirety, each part and the whole are of infinite value.  He holds that
+the strengthening, purifying, and perfecting that salvation brings
+apply to the psychic and the physical natures, that no part is exempt,
+that neither intellect nor will nor feeling ceases with death, that the
+range of reason will be increased, and its operation made more sure,
+that lofty and sustained endeavour will replace the transient energy of
+the earthly will, that feeling will be enhanced, harmonised, and
+purified, that a spiritual body continuous with the body of the flesh
+will express man's heavenly experience.  These high far-reaching hopes
+rest on the doctrines of catholic Christology.  Christ assumed our
+nature complete in body and psychic parts.  He did so with a purpose,
+and that purpose could be none other than the redemption of the body
+and of all the psychic elements.  To the mystic, body and human
+activities may seem only transient and unworthy of a place in heaven.
+Such is false spirituality.  It is contrary to the tenor of catholic
+teaching.  The incarnation brought divine and human together on earth.
+The resurrection fixed their union.  The ascension gave humanity an
+eternal place among eternal things.
+
+
+
+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 sufferings.  Dogmatic reasons apart, the monophysite is
+motived by a repugnance to physical pain and by a wish to exclude it
+from the experience of the human ideal.  To this motive we can trace
+the modern tendency to transfer the doctrinal centre of gravity from
+the Passion to the incarnation.  The Passion and Death used to occupy
+the first place in the thoughts of Christians and formed the foundation
+for all theories of atonement.  The incarnation was regarded as, for
+the purposes of dogma, subsidiary.  Within recent times the position
+has been reversed.  The main stress falls now on the incarnation.  The
+Passion seems of secondary importance, if, as modern theology often
+teaches, all purposes of redemption were secured prior to it.  In thus
+changing the venue of redemption modern theology is wrong.  The mistake
+is prompted largely, so it seems to the writer, by monophysitism latent
+in modern religious thought; at any rate strict adherence to the
+catholic doctrine of two natures would have prevented it.  The human
+nature that Christ assumed had to be perfected through suffering;
+otherwise it could not attain that universality and representative
+character which enabled it to become the medium of universal salvation.
+If it had been enough for the divine spirit to mingle with men, to show
+them a pattern life, and to touch them to higher things, an apparition
+would have been adequate, and no community of suffering would have been
+necessary.  Since Christ not only appeared as man, but experienced in
+His flesh all man's experiences, death which is the climax of human
+experience fell to His lot and set the seal to the divine enterprise.
+Since He who died was the flesh and blood embodiment of the cosmic
+relation.  His death has cosmic significance.  The doctrinal edifice in
+which Calvary is of ornamental and not of structural value has
+monophysitism for its foundation.
+
+
+
+HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF CHRISTIANITY OBSCURED
+
+Christ's mission is misunderstood to-day as well as His cosmic work.
+In certain religious quarters where zeal is not balanced by learning,
+His mission as the founder of a religious society is forgotten.  To
+those who are deficient in historic sense the continuity of the Church
+down the centuries seems unimportant, and institutional religion a
+hindrance rather than a help to the spiritual life of the individual
+Christian.  Pietism of this kind has always been present in the church;
+to-day it is prevalent.  It nominally associates its piety with the
+historic Christ, but actually it worships an ideal constructed by its
+own ethical imagination.  Such pietists spiritualise the faith.  The
+facts of the historic creed are to them little more than symbols of
+religious truth.  Spiritual resurrection, spiritual ascension are the
+only miracles for them.  This tendency to spiritualise everything is a
+phase of monophysitism.  It results from losing sight of the person of
+the historic Christ, and resolving His assumption of human nature into
+the assumption of a title.
+
+
+
+CHRISTOLOGY A DETERMINANT OF SACRAMENTAL THOUGHT
+
+Errors in sacramental teaching necessarily accompany misconceptions of
+the person of Christ.  The incarnation is a cosmic sacrament, the
+meeting-point of divine and human, and the sacraments of the church are
+types of the vaster mystery.  In both type and antitype it is all
+important to give due weight to divine and human, and not to exalt one
+element at the expense of the other.  Those who undervalue the human
+nature of Christ are disposed to undervalue the outward sign in the
+sacraments.  Not appreciating the hypostatic union of divine with
+human, they misunderstand the sacramental union of the same elements.
+Blind to the significance of Christ's humanity in the economy of
+redemption, they fail to see how matter can be the channel of
+sacramental grace.  Yet the discipline of faith is the same in both
+cases.  The Christian enterprise is not merely to believe in the
+divine, but to believe in the divine manifested in the human.
+
+There are two divergent, almost opposing, schools of sacramental
+teaching, both of which have inherited the spirit of monophysitism.
+Both are instances of sacramental monism.  First, there are those who
+identify the outward signs and the inward grace; second, those to whom
+the inward grace is everything and the outward sign nothing.  Both
+schools of thought destroy the nature of a sacrament.  The radical
+error of both consists in undervaluing the human and material.  In the
+first case the error takes the form of the transubstantiation doctrine,
+which is exactly parallel to the extreme form of Eutychianism.
+According to Eutyches, the human nature of Christ was absorbed into the
+divine and lost there; the truth of His being was the divine
+personality; the human element was only an appearance.  Similarly the
+transubstantiation theory conceives the mutation of the _substance_ of
+the material elements and the loss of their proper nature; the
+appearance of reality that the _accidents_ possess is an illusion of
+the senses.  We may note in passing that the opposite error to
+transubstantiation finds its Christological parallel in Nestorianism.
+Socinianism which separates symbol from sacramental grace is
+sacramental dualism, as Nestorianism is Christological dualism.  Both
+abandon a vital unity of divine and human.  The pietistic or mystical
+view of the sacraments does so too, but in a different way.  This
+second form of sacramental monism has much in common with the doctrine
+of one nature.  To the pietist the divine seems all important, and the
+material no help, but rather a hindrance to the spiritual life.  The
+faith of the individual to him is the seat of the efficacy of the
+sacraments; he regards matter as unreal if not sinful, and in either
+case unworthy to be a channel of divine grace.  Echo after echo of
+monophysite thought can be caught here.  The surest way to combat
+sacramental errors on both sides is a clear and definite statement of
+the catholic doctrine of Christology.
+
+
+
+NEED OF A MENTAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST
+
+As the interval of time widens, separating Christians from the human
+life of their God, the more urgent becomes the obligation to put forth
+a constructive effort of the historical imagination.  The attempt to
+keep that memory green grows harder and harder as the centuries pass;
+but Christians must make it; otherwise the historical character of
+their religion will perish.  There need be no fear that the interests
+of spiritual religion will suffer.  Amongst moderns the danger of
+idealising the human is greater than that of humanising the divine.  An
+intelligent appreciation of Christ's human life draws out love and
+kindles reverence towards the divine personality who condescended to
+the level of mankind.  We may point by way of illustration to the
+effect of biblical criticism.  Christians of a previous generation
+dreaded the touch of criticism.  They thought it profanation.  They
+refused to admit any human element in the bible.  Criticism, however,
+had its way.  Bibliolatry had to go.  The result is that the bible is a
+living book to us to-day.  In spite of the fears of the devout there
+was little to lose and much to gain by recognising the human element in
+the bible.  As with the written word, so with the living Word.  Without
+a recognition of the human element in His being, a full assimilation of
+His teaching and an intimate perception of His real presence are
+unattainable.  If this recognition be accorded, the great past will
+live again in the present.  Hostile critics study the life and
+character of Christ and the records of them with a view to proving that
+He was merely man.  Believers may adopt their method with a different
+object.  They may undertake the same study in order to comprehend the
+wonder of the Man, and so rise to some conception of the wonder of the
+God.  The gospels are read mainly as a handbook of devotion; they
+should be studied as the biography of a hero.  The face-value of its
+incidents is often neglected, while the reader seeks allegorical and
+mystical interpretations.  To form a mental picture of Christ in His
+environment, to read ourselves back into His world and then into His
+ways of thought, such efforts are more than ever needed to-day, and
+they are more than ever absent.  Historic sense and imagination should
+be allowed to play upon the recorded acts and sayings of Jesus, until a
+great temple to His memory rises in the high places of the mind,
+dominating thence the whole intellectual and moral life.  Such an
+enterprise would infuse life and meaning into the Christological
+formula, and would effect, so to speak, a reconstruction of the human
+nature of the historic Christ.  The Christian's attitude towards the
+Man Christ Jesus is the "acid test" of the sincerity of his faith.  No
+one can bring intellectual difficulties to a being to whom cognising
+was a foreign process, nor moral difficulties to one who knew no
+conflict of wills, nor sorrows to one "all breathing human passion far
+above."  If we picture the ideal of all mankind as thinking our
+thoughts, willing as we will, feeling as we feel, we are united to Him
+by an intellectual, moral and emotional bond of sympathy.  Such a
+threefold cord is not quickly broken.  Communion with such a Being
+leads the worshipper to the heart of the Christian religion.
+
+
+
+
+THE END
+
+
+
+
+
+
+PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of Project Gutenberg's Monophysitism Past and Present, by A. A. Luce
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MONOPHYSITISM PAST AND PRESENT ***
+
+***** This file should be named 30219-8.txt or 30219-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        https://www.gutenberg.org/3/0/2/1/30219/
+
+Produced by Al Haines
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/30219-8.zip b/30219-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fbc3dd2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/30219-8.zip
diff --git a/30219-h.zip b/30219-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7b8c105
--- /dev/null
+++ b/30219-h.zip
diff --git a/30219-h/30219-h.htm b/30219-h/30219-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5dacef7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/30219-h/30219-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,4317 @@
+<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
+<HTML>
+<HEAD>
+
+<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
+
+<TITLE>
+The Project Gutenberg E-text of Monophysitism, by A. A. Luce
+</TITLE>
+
+<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
+BODY { color: Black;
+       background: White;
+       margin-right: 10%;
+       margin-left: 10%;
+       font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;
+       text-align: justify }
+
+P {text-indent: 4% }
+
+P.noindent {text-indent: 0% }
+
+P.poem {text-indent: 0%;
+        margin-left: 10%;
+        font-size: small }
+
+P.closing {font-size: small ;
+           text-indent: 0%;
+           margin-left: 10% ;
+           margin-right: 10% }
+
+P.footnote {font-size: 80% ;
+            text-indent: 0% ;
+            margin-left: 10% ;
+            margin-right: 10% }
+
+P.finis { font-size: larger ;
+          text-align: center ;
+          text-indent: 0% ;
+          margin-left: 0% ;
+          margin-right: 0% }
+
+</STYLE>
+
+</HEAD>
+
+<BODY>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Monophysitism Past and Present, by A. A. Luce
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Monophysitism Past and Present
+       A Study in Christology
+
+Author: A. A. Luce
+
+Release Date: December 1, 2009 [EBook #30219]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MONOPHYSITISM PAST AND PRESENT ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Al Haines
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H1 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM
+</H1>
+
+<H2 ALIGN="center">
+PAST AND PRESENT
+</H2>
+
+<BR>
+
+<H3 ALIGN="center">
+A STUDY IN CHRISTOLOGY
+</H3>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+BY
+</H4>
+
+<H3 ALIGN="center">
+A. A. LUCE, M.C., D.D.
+</H3>
+
+<BR>
+
+<H5 ALIGN="center">
+CAPTAIN LATE 12TH ROYAL IRISH RIFLES
+<BR>
+FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN
+</H5>
+
+<BR><BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+LONDON
+<BR>
+SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE
+<BR>
+NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN CO.
+<BR>
+1920
+</H4>
+
+<BR><BR><BR>
+
+<H5 ALIGN="center">
+PRINTED BY
+<BR>
+WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
+<BR>
+LONDON AND BECCLES
+</H5>
+
+<BR><BR><BR>
+
+<H2 ALIGN="center">
+CONTENTS
+</H2>
+
+<TABLE ALIGN="center" WIDTH="80%">
+
+<TR>
+<TD ALIGN="right" VALIGN="top">CHAPTER</TD>
+<TD ALIGN="left" VALIGN="top">&nbsp;</TD>
+</TR>
+
+<TR>
+<TD ALIGN="right" VALIGN="top">I.&nbsp;&nbsp;</TD>
+<TD ALIGN="left" VALIGN="top">
+<A HREF="#chap01">THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS OF MONOPHYSITISM</A></TD>
+</TR>
+
+<TR>
+<TD ALIGN="right" VALIGN="top">II.&nbsp;&nbsp;</TD>
+<TD ALIGN="left" VALIGN="top">
+<A HREF="#chap02">THE ORIGINS OF MONOPHYSITISM</A></TD>
+</TR>
+
+<TR>
+<TD ALIGN="right" VALIGN="top">III.&nbsp;&nbsp;</TD>
+<TD ALIGN="left" VALIGN="top">
+<A HREF="#chap03">MONOPHYSITE DOCTRINE</A></TD>
+</TR>
+
+<TR>
+<TD ALIGN="right" VALIGN="top">IV.&nbsp;&nbsp;</TD>
+<TD ALIGN="left" VALIGN="top">
+<A HREF="#chap04">THE ETHOS OF MONOPHYSITISM</A></TD>
+</TR>
+
+<TR>
+<TD ALIGN="right" VALIGN="top">V.&nbsp;&nbsp;</TD>
+<TD ALIGN="left" VALIGN="top">
+<A HREF="#chap05">MONOPHYSITISM AND MODERN PSYCHOLOGY</A></TD>
+</TR>
+
+<TR>
+<TD ALIGN="right" VALIGN="top">VI.&nbsp;&nbsp;</TD>
+<TD ALIGN="left" VALIGN="top">
+<A HREF="#chap06">MONOPHYSITISM IN THE PRESENT DAY</A></TD>
+</TR>
+
+</TABLE>
+
+<BR><BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+BOOKS CONSULTED IN THE
+<BR>
+PREPARATION OF THIS ESSAY
+</H4>
+
+<P CLASS="noindent">
+J. S. ASSEMANI, "Bibliotheca Orientalis," especially the Introductory
+Dissertation to Vol. II.
+</P>
+
+<P CLASS="noindent">
+A. HARNACK, "History of Dogma," translated by Speirs and Millar.
+</P>
+
+<P CLASS="noindent">
+J. C. ROBERTSON, "History of the Christian Church."
+</P>
+
+<P CLASS="noindent">
+WINDELBAND, "History of Philosophy," translated by Tufts.
+</P>
+
+<P CLASS="noindent">
+WRIGHT, "Short History of Syriac Literature."
+</P>
+
+<P CLASS="noindent">
+H. BERGSON, "Les données immédiates de la conscience," "Matière et
+Mémoire," "L'évolution créatrice."
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR><BR>
+
+<A NAME="chap01"></A>
+
+<H2 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM PAST AND PRESENT
+</H2>
+
+<BR>
+
+<H3 ALIGN="center">
+CHAPTER I
+</H3>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Monophysitism was a Christological heresy of the fifth century.  It was
+condemned by the church in the middle of that century at the council of
+Chalcedon.  Surviving its condemnation it flourished in the East for
+several centuries.  Its adherents formed themselves into a powerful
+church with orders and succession of their own.  Although the
+monophysite church has long since lost all influence, it is still in
+being.  The Coptic and Jacobite churches of Egypt and Mesopotamia,
+respectively, preserve to this day the doctrines and traditions of the
+primitive monophysites.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The history of the sect, however, does not concern us here.  The
+writer's purpose is to review its doctrine.  Monophysitism is a system
+of religious thought, and, as such, its importance is out of all
+proportion to the present or even the past position of the churches
+that professed it.  Its significance lies in its universality.  It is
+grounded in the nature of the human mind.  It is found in West as well
+as East, to-day as well as in the early centuries of our era.  Wherever
+men bring intellect to bear on the problem of Christ's being, the
+tendency to regard Him as monophysite is present.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+An examination of the heresy is of practical value.  Our subject-matter
+is not an oriental antique or a curiosity of the intellect, but a
+present-day problem of vital moment to the Faith.  If we are concerned
+with a half-forgotten heresy, it is because a study of that heresy
+serves both as a preventive against error and as an introduction to the
+truth.  The doctor studies disease to ascertain the conditions of
+health; pathological cases are often his surest guide to the normal;
+just so the study of heresy is the best guide to orthodox Christology.
+It was in conflict with monophysitism that the church of the fifth
+century brought to completion her dogmatic utterances about Christ; and
+the individual thinker to-day can gain the surest grasp of true
+Christology by examining the monophysite perversion.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+With this practical purpose in view, we now proceed to an analysis of
+the heresy.  Monophysitism is a body of doctrine.  It is a dogmatic
+system, in which the individual dogmata are controlled by a principle
+or dominant idea.  As all the particular doctrines of monophysitism
+depend on this principle, and, as it is not properly a theological
+concept, but one borrowed from philosophy, we may call it "the
+metaphysical basis of monophysitism."  An intelligent grasp of this
+basic principle is necessary to an appreciation of the whole system.
+Accordingly, our first concern is to ascertain and exhibit this
+metaphysical basis.  In subsequent chapters we shall analyse in detail
+the doctrines specifically monophysite and trace the Christological
+errors back to their source in metaphysic.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE <I>A PRIORI</I> AND <I>A POSTERIORI</I> IN CHRISTOLOGY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The following considerations prove the necessity of this procedure.
+Two methods of examining the being of Christ can be distinguished.
+According to the one method the facts of His life are reviewed as they
+are presented in the New Testament, and a formula is then constructed
+to fit them.  The other method starts from the concept of a mediator
+between God and man.  It supposes that concept actualised, and asks the
+question, "Of what nature must such a mediator be?"  These methods may
+be distinguished, but they cannot be separated.  No one, however
+scientific, can come to a study of the life of Jesus with an absolutely
+open mind.  Presuppositions are inevitable.  Similarly, as the <I>a
+priori</I> thinker develops his concept of a mediator, he compares the
+results of his thinking at every stage with the picture presented in
+the Gospel story, and that picture unavoidably modifies his deductions.
+Both diphysite and monophysite used a combination of these two methods.
+Each party took the recorded facts and interpreted them in accordance
+with their notion of what a mediator should be.  Both parties studied
+the same facts; but the <I>a priori</I> of their thought differed, and so
+their conclusions differed.  In the realm of Christology this <I>a
+priori</I> of thought is of paramount importance.  Preconceived opinions
+inevitably colour our mental picture of Christ.  Readers of the Gospel
+narrative find there the Christ they are prepared to find.  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 rests.  That philosophy supplies the <I>a priori</I>, or the
+presupposition, or the metaphysical basis, whichever name we prefer.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+We do not suggest that theologians have consciously adopted a
+metaphysical principle as the basis of their beliefs, and then have
+applied it to the special problem of Christology.  That is a possible
+method but not the usual one.  In most cases the philosophic basis
+remains in the background of consciousness; its existence is
+unrecognised and its influence undetected.  If Christian thinkers took
+the trouble to analyse the basis of their beliefs about Christ, they
+would not halt, as they so often do, at the stage of monophysitism.  If
+they laid bare to the foundations the structure of their faith, the
+danger of error would be reduced to a minimum.  Viewed from the
+standpoint of timeless reason, monophysitism is based on a definite
+metaphysical idea.  Not all monophysites have consciously adopted that
+basis; many, had they recognised its presence, would have rejected it.
+But it was present as a tendency.  A tendency may be neutralised by
+counteracting causes; but it has its effect, and sooner or later it
+will produce positive results.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE THREE TYPICAL CHRISTOLOGIES
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The same truth holds of the other Christological systems.  A different
+metaphysical idea lies at the root of each.  Nestorian, monophysite,
+catholic, these three were the main types of Christologian in the fifth
+century.  Each studied Christ's life.  After studying it, the Nestorian
+said of Him, "There are two persons here."  "Not so," said the
+monophysite, "I see but one incarnate nature of God the Word."  The
+catholic replied, "You are both wrong; there is one person in two
+natures."  All three types deserve close study.  The thinkers were
+devout and sincere, and, for the most part, able men.  There is no
+question here of superficial uninformed thought, nor of moral
+obliquity.  The disagreement was due not to their vision but to their
+view point, not to the object of their thought or the process of their
+thinking, but to their different presuppositions and starting points.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Presented in this way the monophysite and other Christological
+controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries become phases of the
+cosmic problem.  They thus regain the dignity which is theirs by right,
+and which they lose in the ordinary church histories.  The heat of
+passion they aroused becomes intelligible.  It was no battle about
+words.  The stakes were high.  The controversialists championed
+far-reaching principles with a decisive influence on the course of
+thought and conduct.  Unfriendly critics usually portray the
+Christologians as narrow-minded and audacious.  So, no doubt, they
+were, but they were not wrong-headed.  If the matters in dispute
+between theist, deist, and pantheist are trivialities, then and then
+only can we regard the enterprise of the Christologians as chimerical
+and their achievements as futile.  The different formulae represented
+attitudes of mind fundamentally opposed.  No peace between catholic and
+monophysite was possible.  They had conflicting conceptions of ultimate
+truth.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+DEPENDENCE OF CHRISTOLOGY ON PHILOSOPHY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+We mentioned above the two other chief Christological systems, the
+Nestorian and the catholic.  No analysis of monophysitism which omitted
+a reference to these systems would be complete.  They were three nearly
+contemporary attempts to solve the same problem.  The comparison is of
+special interest when, as here, fundamental principles are under
+examination.  It demonstrates the closeness of the connection between
+the Christological and the cosmic problems.  In each of the three cases
+we find that a school of philosophy corresponds to the school of
+theology, and that the philosopher's dominant idea about the cosmos
+decided the theologian's interpretation of Christ.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+This connection between philosophy and Christology is of early date.
+From the nature of both disciplines it had to be.  Even in apostolic
+days the meaning of the incarnation was realised.  Christ was
+apprehended as a being of more than national or terrestrial importance.
+The Pauline and Johannine Christologies gave cosmic significance to His
+work, and so inevitably to His Person.  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 Stoics.  That is to say, He
+stands not only between God and man, but between Creator and creation.
+He is the embodiment of the cosmic relation.  From early days, then,
+philosophy and religion were working at the same problem; their paths
+met at the one goal of the Ideal Person who satisfied both head and
+heart.  The systematic Christology of the fifth century was, therefore,
+a completion of the work begun in the first.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE CHRISTOLOGICAL AND THE COSMIC PROBLEMS
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The essence of the Christological problem is the question as to the
+union of natures in Christ.  Are there two natures divine and human in
+Him?  Is each distinct from the other and from the person?  Is the
+distinction conceptual or actual?  The incarnation is a union.  Is it a
+real union?  If so, what did it unite?  We have seen that such
+questions cannot be approached without presuppositions.  What these
+presuppositions shall be is decided in the sphere of a wider problem.
+This wider problem is known as the cosmic problem.  The solution given
+to it prescribes the presuppositions of any attempt to solve the
+specialised problem.  We shall proceed to sketch the cosmic problem,
+and to indicate the three main types of answers given to it.  It will
+then be evident that these three answers find their respective
+counterparts in the Nestorian, monophysite and the catholic solutions
+of the Christological problem.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+As man's intellectual powers mature, two supreme generalisations force
+themselves on his consciousness.  He conceives his experience as a
+whole and calls it the world; he conceives the basis of his experience
+as a whole and calls it God.  To some minds the world, to some minds
+God, is the greater reality; but both concepts are present in varying
+proportions wherever thought becomes self-conscious.  Here we have in
+its lowest terms the material for the ontological question, the first
+and the last problem of philosophy.  God and the world, at first dimly
+conceived and scarcely differentiated, gradually separate and take
+shape in the mind as distinct entities.  The concepts become
+principles, fixed by language and mental imagery.  The gulf between
+them widens until they stand at opposite poles of thought.  In their
+isolation they constitute a standing challenge to the mind of man.  If
+he thinks the world in terms of time, he must postulate a creator.  If
+he thinks the world out of time, he is forced to conceive a ground of
+the world's being.  The world cannot be thought without God nor God
+without the world.  The one necessitates the other.  Yet when the
+thinker tries to define the terms, he can at first only do so by
+negatives.  The world is what God is not, and God is what the world is
+not.  The two primary concepts thus attract and repel each other.  The
+mind's first task is to grasp them in their difference.  It cannot rest
+there, but must proceed to attempt to reunite them and grasp them in
+their unity.  Thus the main problem of philosophy is to conceive and
+find expression for the relation between God and the world.
+Christology attacks essentially the same problem.  Christology is an
+attempt to define the relation between God and the world in terms of
+personality.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+This relation has been conceived in three modes.  According to the
+level of thought reached, or, as led by their disposition and
+education, men have made their choice between three mediating concepts.
+Hence derive three divergent types of thought and three outlooks on
+life fundamentally opposed.  We shall take them in their logical
+sequence for convenience of treatment.  The historical connection is of
+no importance for our present purpose, but it is noteworthy that the
+time order both of the schools of philosophy and of the corresponding
+Christological systems follows approximately the logical order.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE FIRST SOLUTION OF THE COSMIC PROBLEM&mdash;DUALISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The first attempted solution of the cosmic problem is best expressed in
+the concept "co-existence."  God <I>and</I> the world co-exist.  God is, and
+the world is; their relation is expressed by an "and."  "God and the
+world" is the truth, all that man can and need know.  This solution is
+verbal.  It leaves the problem more or less as it finds it.  The two
+principles remain ultimates; neither is reduced to the other.  God
+still stands outside the world and the world outside God.  Neither can
+explain the other.  This dualism is the lowest stage of ontological
+thought.  The thinker sees the problem, only to turn away from it.  He
+surmises that there is some relation between the two; but he cannot
+define it, and it remains ineffectual.  This was Plato's early
+standpoint.  He established the idea as the truth of the thing, but he
+failed to find expression for the relation between idea and ideate.  He
+took refuge in symbolical language, and spoke of the thing as a "copy"
+of the idea or as a "participant" in it.  But as there was no causation
+on the one side or dependence on the other side, all that the earlier
+Platonic philosophy achieved was in its ideal world to duplicate the
+real.  Plato's heaven simply co-exists with the world, and the relation
+between them is merely verbal.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+This metaphysical idea survived Plato and Plato's system, and passed
+into common currency.  It found and still finds expression in numerous
+speculative and practical systems.  In religious ontology we find it in
+deism.  According to the deist there was once at a definite point of
+time a relation between God and the world, the relation of creation.
+But, creation finished, the relation ceased.  In other words, God
+created the world, and then withdrew into Himself, leaving the world to
+work out its own salvation.  The deist believes in God; but his is a
+self-contained God, who does not interfere in the course of things or
+continue creating.  Such a conception of God is useless for religious
+purposes, because it represents Him as out of all relation with the
+world.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+CHRISTOLOGICAL DUALISM&mdash;NESTORIANISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The Christological counterpart of dualism and of deism is Nestorianism.
+The Nestorians halt at the lowest stage of Christological thought.
+They admit Christ to be the meeting-point of God and man, but they
+nullify the admission by introducing dualism into the person of Christ.
+They set out to find the solution of the cosmic problem in Christ; they
+endeavour to express the relation between God and the world in terms of
+His personality.  They bring the two concepts together, but they do not
+weld them.  Faith and courage fail them at the critical moment.  They
+substitute an association for a union.  They leave God and man
+co-existing in Christ, but not united there.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Nestorianism is a halfway house on the road from Arianism to
+Christianity.  It is a weak compromise.  The deity in Christ is
+admitted, but its unity with humanity denied.  The divine remains
+external to the human nature.  According to the doctrine ascribed to
+Nestorius two persons, the son of God and the son of Mary, at the
+Baptism were mysteriously associated.  The union consists partly in
+identity of name, partly in the gradual deepening of the association.
+As Jesus grew in spiritual power and knowledge and obedience to the
+divine will, the union which at first was relative gradually deepened
+towards an absolute union.  Divinity was not His birthright, but
+acquired.  Thus throughout His life the two personalities remained
+external to one another.  The divine worked miracles; the human
+suffered.  The Nestorian could pride himself on having preserved the
+reality of the divine and the reality of the human; he could worship
+the one and imitate the other.  But his system was non-Christian,
+because it excludes the element of mediation.  A dual personality could
+never make atonement or redeem humanity.  God and man in Christ were
+brought into nominal contact, but there was provided no channel by
+which the divine virtue might pass into the human.  The Nestorian
+remains content with his solution, because the background of his
+thought is dualist.  The thinker's attitude to the cosmic problem
+decides his attitude to the Christological problem.  Content to couple
+God and the world by an "and," he similarly couples by an "and" the
+Logos and Jesus Christ.  Dividing God from the world, he divides
+Christ.  Abandoning metaphysical relation between the cosmic
+principles, he despairs of finding, or, rather, has no motive for
+seeking a personal relation between God and man in the being of Christ.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+SECOND SOLUTION OF THE COSMIC PROBLEM&mdash;MONISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The second solution given to the cosmic problem is of special
+importance for our thesis.  It had a direct influence on monophysitism,
+and may be regarded as supplying the metaphysical basis for that
+heresy.  It represents an advance to a higher stage of thought, just as
+monophysitism, which depends on it, is an advance on Nestorianism, and
+has always been regarded as a more venial heresy.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The mind finding no satisfaction in dualism advances to monism.  The
+spectacle of two unrelated ultimate principles impels it to seek and,
+if necessary, to invent some mode of reconciling them.  Explain it as
+we may, the craving for unity, for synthesis, for mediation is radical
+in human thought.  The mind cannot rest at anything short of it.  God
+and the world, held asunder conceptually or only nominally united,
+constitute a contradiction <I>in excelsis</I>, and, as such, provide an
+irresistible motive for further and deeper thought.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+As is natural, the swing of the pendulum carries the mind to the
+opposite extreme.  Co-existence failing to supply the required
+solution, the key is sought in identity.  God and the world are thought
+as identical.  The terms are connected by the copula.  God <I>is</I> the
+world, and the world <I>is</I> God.  This is the truth of being, for the
+monist.  The two principles are merged in one, and the contradiction
+solved by an assertion of the identity of the contradictories.  Monism
+takes two forms.  It may be either materialist or spiritual.  One term
+must be selected as the reality, and the other written off as an
+illusion.  If the thinker's bent of mind be scientific, he is disposed
+to make the material world the only objective reality, and God becomes
+simply a working hypothesis or a creation of the subjective mind.  It
+would be beside our purpose to do more than mention this phase of
+monism.  Spiritual monism, however, requires lengthier treatment; it is
+of vital importance to our subject.  In this case the mind takes sides
+with God as against the world.  God is the reality and the world the
+illusion.  The world is God, in spite of appearances to the contrary.
+As world it has no substantive reality; it has no existence for self.
+It is the shadow of God, an emanation from Him, or an aspect of Him.
+Like dualism, monism is only a sham solution of the cosmic problem.  It
+fails to keep prominent the idea of relation.  A relation must relate.
+If its terms are merged, the relation falls to the ground.  A relation
+must be such that, while the terms are unified, they are preserved as
+realities.  It must both unify and keep distinct.  To abandon either
+God or the world is a counsel of despair.  To detract from the reality
+of either is treason to fact and tantamount to a shelving of the cosmic
+problem.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL MONISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The systems that identify God and the world range from the crude
+materialism of Democritus to the lofty spiritualism of Plotinus.  Stoic
+cosmology occupies an intermediate position.  The Stoic was nominally a
+pantheist, but he seems to have oscillated between a spiritual and a
+materialist explanation of the universal being.  The monist system that
+prepared the soil for monophysitism and constantly fostered its growth
+was Neo-Platonism.  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 life.  The world and the human spirit,
+for Plotinus, were simply manifestations of God.  He taught that, as
+light issues from the sun and proceeds forth on its way, growing
+gradually dimmer till it passes into darkness, so the world of thought
+and thing has no true being apart from God, from whom it proceeded and
+to whom it returns.  Spiritual monism found in Alexandria a congenial
+home.  Blending there with oriental mysticism it produced a crop of
+gnostic speculative systems, in all of which Acosmism or a denial of
+the world was the keynote.  Whether the problem was conceived in terms
+of being or of value, the result was the same.  The world has no true
+being.  Its appearance of solidity is a sham.  It has no value.
+Compared with God, it is negligible.  It is but the shadow cast by the
+eternal sun.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The monophysite tenets traceable to monism will be considered in detail
+in later chapters.  Here our concern is to show that monism supplies
+the metaphysical principle on which the heresy is based; that, as
+dualism provides the <I>a priori</I> of Nestorian thought, monism provides
+the <I>a priori</I> of monophysite thought.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+CHRISTOLOGICAL MONISM&mdash;MONOPHYSITISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The essential doctrine of monophysitism is the assertion of the
+absolute numerical unity of the person of Christ.  It carries to
+extremes its denial of the dual personality maintained by the
+Nestorians.  All vestiges of duality were banished from His being;
+there were not two persons: there were not even two natures.  There was
+in Christ only the one nature of God the Word.  The human nature at the
+incarnation was absorbed into the divine.  It no more has substantive
+existence than has the world in a pantheistic system.  This is monism
+in terms of personality.  Its presuppositions are those of a mind
+imbued with an all-powerful feeling for unity.  It is faced with the
+problem of reconciling God and the world in the person of Jesus Christ.
+It brings to that problem a prejudice against the real being and the
+real value of the world.  Hence it is led to draw the false conclusion
+that humanity, which is part of the world, is not a permanent element
+in the highest truth; that even perfect humanity, humanity
+representative of all that is noblest in the race, cannot be allowed
+true existence in the Ideal.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Monism abandons the universal relation by abandoning one or other of
+the terms to be related.  Monophysitism cuts a similar knot in a
+similar fashion.  It jettisons redemption by excluding from the
+Redeemer all kinship with that which He came to redeem.  Nominally
+admitting human nature into union with deity, it destroys the reality
+of that transaction at a stroke by making the two natures identical.
+So the incarnation, for the monophysite, becomes a myth; no change in
+the nature of the Logos took place at it, and, consequently, no change
+in the nature of the Man Christ Jesus.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+We may trace the likeness between the cosmic and the Christological
+problems still further.  Monism is forced to attempt to give some
+account of the world's apparent reality.  Similarly monophysitism had
+to try to explain those facts of Christ's life which on the face of the
+Gospel narrative are human and normal.  The explanation offered is
+essentially the same in both systems.  The monist asserts that the
+world exists only in the mind of the thinker.  It is an illusion of the
+senses.  The duty of the philosopher is to overcome the illusion by
+turning away from the world of sense and fixing his mind on true being;
+by ascesis and contemplation he endeavours to attain the ecstatic
+state, in which the illusion of the world's reality disappears, and the
+potential identity of man with the universal spirit becomes actualised
+in experience.  Similarly, for the monophysite, the humanity of Christ
+was a creation of the senses.  Christ's body was a phantom, and His
+human mind simply an aspect of Him.  They were impressions left on the
+minds of His contemporaries.  Having no substantive existence, no
+reality in fact, they were to be ignored in Christological dogma.  They
+were not to be considered as part of the true Christ; they were not to
+be worshipped.  No spiritual value attached to them.  They were
+hindrances rather than helps to the religion that aimed at entire
+abandonment of self and absorption in the divine.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE THIRD SOLUTION OF THE COSMIC PROBLEM&mdash;IDENTITY IN DIFFERENCE
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+We come now to the third and last solution of the cosmic problem.  As
+we develop it, we shall endeavour to show that it supplies that
+metaphysical idea which forms the basis of catholic Christology.  The
+two previous solutions failed.  They do not satisfy the philosopher and
+they mislead the theologian.  The one separates God from the world; the
+other merges them.  Thus both, in effect, abandon the original
+enterprise.  They destroy the relation instead of expressing it.  The
+concepts both of co-existence and of identity have proved fruitless in
+the speculative problem, and in Christology have given rise to heresy.
+The third school of thought takes as its starting point neither God,
+nor the world, nor the two as co-existing, but the relation of the two.
+It makes that relation such that the terms related are preserved in the
+relation.  Neither identity nor difference is the full truth, but
+identity in and through difference.  God is not the world, nor is the
+world God.  God is, and the world is.  Each are facts.  In their
+separateness they are not true facts.  It is only as we conceive the
+two in their oneness, a supra-numerical oneness, that we can give their
+full value to each.  The world is God's world; therefore it has being
+and value.  The cosmic relation then is expressed not by an "and," nor
+by an "is," but by an "of."  The God "<I>of</I>" the world is the key
+concept that unlocks the doors of the palace of truth.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+It was in the prominence given to this concept that Aristotle's system
+made a great advance on that of his predecessor.  Plato had established
+a world of ideas with the idea of the Good as its centre, but he left
+it unrelated to the world of experience.  Aristotle insisted on
+relating the ideal and the real.  His concept of relation was that of
+form and matter.  The world apart from God is matter apart from form.
+It has only potential reality.  When it becomes united to its form, it
+becomes actual.  Its form makes it a fact&mdash;what it has in it to be.
+Aristotle conceives different grades of being.  Unformed matter is the
+lowest of these grades, and God the highest.  Each grade supplies the
+matter of which the next highest grade is the form.  Ascending the
+scale of being at last we reach pure form.  Thus the ladder of
+development is constructed by which the world rises to its realisation
+in God.  Aristotle gave to humanity the conception of a God who
+transcends the world, and yet is immanent in it, as form is in matter.
+Thus Greek philosophy in Aristotle attained that spiritual monotheism
+which supplied the foundation for the edifice of Christian doctrine.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The effect of Aristotle's teaching was felt by all the ecclesiastical
+parties in the fifth century.  As we shall see in a later chapter, some
+of the subsidiary elements of his philosophy are reflected in
+monophysitism.  The dominant ideas, however, of the system, the
+conception of God and the world and the relation between them, were
+taken over by the catholic theologians, and incorporated into their
+Christology.  We need not here inquire whether Aristotle's influence
+was direct or indirect.  No doubt many of the theologians who
+constructed Christian doctrine had read his works.  Whether that is so
+or not, they must have unconsciously assimilated his central doctrine.
+It was common property.  The determination to keep God a reality and
+the world a reality and yet relate the two became the controlling
+motive of their thinking.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Aristotle in theory and application of theory has always a feeling for
+fact.  The individual thing and the world of individual things are, for
+him, never negligible.  Realised matter, life, the human spirit, human
+nature, are actualities and have their value as such.  They are not all
+on the same level of being; they do not occupy the same rank; and it is
+the philosopher's business to determine their respective positions in
+the scale of being and value.  But he cannot have his head in the
+clouds of contemplation, unless he have his feet on the earth of fact.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE ESSENCE OF CATHOLIC CHRISTOLOGY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Catholic Christology has caught the spirit of Aristotle's teaching.  It
+is not primarily speculative.  It is in close touch with fact.  It is
+the outcome of a deep-felt want.  Redemption is the first demand of
+religious experience; so it is the motive and theme of all Christology.
+The soul views itself as a member of a world of souls estranged from
+God, and for its own peace and welfare seeks to effect a union between
+God and the world.  Such a union, to be effective, must preserve the
+being and value of the world.  If there were no world or only a
+valueless world, there would be nothing to redeem, or nothing worth
+redeeming.  Seeking that union in personality, and in the most
+marvellous personality of history, the orthodox theologians by a true
+instinct ascribed to Him both divine and human natures.  He is the
+cosmic unity of opposites.  His person is the cosmic relation.  In that
+person the lower term of the relation has true being and full value.
+Thus the Church steered a middle course between the Scylla of
+co-existence and the Charybdis of identity.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+These <I>a priori</I> deductions as to the being of Christ were verified by
+a reference to fact.  The life-story of the historic Christ comprises
+two distinct groups of experience.  There are thoughts, deeds, and
+words attributed to Him that only God could have thought, done, and
+said.  There are as well thoughts, deeds and words of His that only a
+man could have thought, done and said.  Hence the diphysite doctrine
+was verified <I>a posteriori</I>.  Again, in both groups of experience there
+is a never-failing connecting link.  There is a unity lying deeper in
+His consciousness than the duality.  Christ, the Agent, is the same in
+both parts.  Whether as God or man, He is never out of character.
+Hence the unity of the person also was established <I>a posteriori</I>.
+Thus, to the orthodox Christologians, the expectation that the human
+Ideal would be a unity, comprising divinity and humanity, was justified
+by historical fact.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+They found a further verification on applying the test of practice.
+Orthodox Christology satisfies the requirements of the soul.  Man's
+chief spiritual need is access to God through "a daysman that might lay
+his hand upon both."  An exemplar, even though perfect, is not adequate
+to his need.  The <I>unio mystica</I> can only be experienced by the
+leisured few.  Man demands a religion of redemption, a redemption that
+allows value to labour, to endeavour, to human thought, that recognises
+the reality of pain and sorrow and sin, a redemption that redeems
+humanity in all its phases and in the wealth of its experiences.  An
+Agent that has not shared to the full those experiences is useless for
+the purpose.  Redemption must be the work of One who knows God and
+knows man, of One who has the touch of sympathy; for to such a touch
+alone can humanity respond.  The Christology that makes Christ Jesus
+consubstantial with God and with man satisfies man's deep-felt need.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+We have taken a triad of ontologies and a triad of Christological
+systems, placed them side by side, and examined them.  The result of
+that examination is a triple correspondence.  The metaphysical
+principle is found in each case worked out in a corresponding
+Christology.  The comparison is of general interest.  It reveals
+Christology as intimately connected with the workings of intellect, as
+in the main stream of the current of human thought, as capable of
+philosophic treatment.  Further than that, the comparison is vital to
+the main argument of this essay.  It provides the clue to the heart of
+our subject.  The scientist, who wishes to understand a botanical
+specimen, pays as much attention to what is in the ground as to what is
+above ground.  The seed and roots are as full of scientific interest as
+are stem, leaf and flower.  Similarly, to understand the monophysite
+heresy, to be able to detect it and expose it, we must take it in the
+germ.  We may push the illustration further.  The properties of a
+botanical specimen are best studied in connection with organisms of
+allied species.  We cannot isolate unless we compare.  By comparison
+the essential features, functions and properties of the specimen under
+examination are elucidated.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+It is by isolating the three germinal ideas of these three
+Christological systems and comparing them, that a full comprehension of
+monophysitism in all its stages, from seed to flower, is reached.  We
+have used this method, and have found that the roots of the heresy lie
+in spiritual monism.  In subsequent chapters we shall analyse its
+origins as a historical system, its specific tenets and its practical
+consequences.  It will then be seen that the spirit of monism pervades
+the whole system.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR><BR>
+
+<A NAME="chap02"></A>
+
+<H3 ALIGN="center">
+CHAPTER II
+</H3>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE ORIGINS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The monophysitism of the fifth century had its roots in the past as
+well as in the <I>a priori</I>.  In the previous chapter we treated it as a
+phase of philosophic thought and reviewed the metaphysic on which the
+heresy rests.  In the present chapter its relations as a historical
+system of religious thought are to be exhibited.  As such, it owes much
+to outside influences.  Much in the monophysite mode of thought and
+many of its specific doctrines can be traced either to other
+ecclesiastical heresies or to pagan philosophies.  The fact of this
+double derivation deserves to be emphasised.  It refutes the charge of
+inquisitorial bigotry, so frequently levelled against the theologians
+of the early centuries.  The non-Christian affinities of the heresy
+account for the bitterness of the controversy to which it gave rise,
+and, in large measure, excuse the intolerance shown by both parties.
+Heresies were not domestic quarrels.  Contemporaries viewed them as
+involving a life and death struggle between believers and unbelievers.
+Christianity can afford to be tolerant to-day.  It has an assured
+position.  Its tenets are defined.  Christians can almost always
+distinguish at a glance errors that threaten the essentials of the
+Faith from those that do not.  In the fourth and fifth centuries the
+case was otherwise.  Christianity was then one among many conflicting
+systems of religion.  Its intellectual bases were as yet only
+imperfectly thought out.  Any doctrinal error seemed capable of
+poisoning the whole body of belief.  Heresy, so the orthodox held, was
+of the devil.  No charitable view of it was allowable.  That
+uncompromising attitude was, to a large extent, justified because many
+articles of the heretical creeds were of purely pagan origin.  Given
+similar conditions to-day, our easy tolerance of opinion would
+disappear.  If Islam, for instance, were to-day a serious menace to the
+Faith, Christians would automatically stiffen their attitude towards
+monophysite doctrines.  Toleration of the false Christology would,
+under those circumstances, be treason to the true.  The Church of the
+fifth century was menaced from many sides.  Monophysitism was the foe
+at her gates.  That heresy was not a variety of Christianity.  It was a
+semi-pagan theosophy, a product of Greek and oriental, as well as of
+purely Christian speculation; therefore it was anathema to the orthodox.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE ELEMENTAL FORMS OF CHRISTOLOGICAL ERROR&mdash;DOCETISM AND EBIONITISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+We propose to begin the study of the antecedents of monophysitism by
+examining those of a Christian or semi-Christian character.  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 problem.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The two primitive forms of doctrinal error, to which the Church, even
+in apostolic days, was exposed, were docetism and ebionitism.  These
+are the elemental heresies.  All the later Christological heresies are
+refinements of one or other of these two.  They constitute the extremes
+of Christological thought: between them runs the <I>via media</I> of
+orthodoxy.  Each of the two sees but one aspect of the two-fold life of
+Christ.  Docetism lays an exclusive emphasis on His real divinity,
+ebionitism on His real humanity.  Each mistakes a half truth for a
+whole truth.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The docetists denied that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh.  His
+body, they taught, was an apparition.  He ate and drank, but the
+physical frame received no sustenance.  He appeared to suffer, but felt
+no pain.  The reality behind the semblance was the divine spirit-being,
+who conjured up the illusion in order to elevate the thoughts of
+mankind.  This docetic theory commended itself to many of the Greek
+Christians.  They were familiar with the notion of "the gods coming
+down to them in the likeness of men."  Greek mythology abounds in
+instances of docetic incarnations.  The gods of the popular religion
+constantly assumed visible form during their temporary manifestations.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The ebionites threatened the Faith from the opposite quarter.  They
+taught that Christ was real man and only man.  According to them, the
+whole value of His life and work lay in His moral teaching and His
+noble example; there is no mystery, no contact of divine and human in
+Christ; what He attained, we all may attain.  The ebionites were
+recruited from the Jewish element in the Church.  The rigid monotheism
+of the Jews made it hard for them to conceive an intermediary between
+God and man; they were naturally disposed to embrace a humanistic
+explanation of Christ.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Docetism was elaborated by Valentinus, Manes and other gnostics and
+adopted into their systems, while ebionitism provided the basis for the
+Christologies of Paul of Samosata, of the Photinians and Adoptionists.
+In contact with these heresies orthodox beliefs, originally fluid,
+gradually hardened.  The dogma "Christus deus et homo" had from the
+beginning been held in the Church.  Its full implications were not
+realised and formulated until the conflict with error came.  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
+humanity.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE PROBLEM OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The manner of the hypostatic union then became an urgent problem.  The
+Church of the fifth century was called upon to attempt a solution.  Any
+reading of the Gospels compelled the recognition of divine and human
+elements in Christ; but speculative theology found it difficult to
+reconcile that fact with the equally important fact of the unity of
+person.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The theologians of the previous century had bequeathed little or no
+guidance.  The fifth-century Christologians were pioneers in an
+unmapped region.  Athanasius' great treatises on the incarnation are
+hardly more than eloquent defences of the true deity and true humanity
+of Christ.  They contain little or no constructive Christology.  Their
+theme is, <I>autòs enênthrópêsen</I>, <I>hína hêmeis theôpoiêthômen</I>.  He
+maintains the fact, but does not deal with the "how."  He uses the
+phrase "natural union" (<I>hénôsis physiké</I>), but does not attempt to
+define the mode of that union.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+APOLLINARIANISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Apollinaris was, as far as we know, the first theologian to approach
+this subject.  We may note in passing that, though he was bishop of
+Laodicea in Syria, Alexandria was his native place.  His father was an
+Alexandrian, and he himself had been a friend of Athanasius.  The fact
+of his connection with Alexandria deserves mention, because his
+doctrine reflects the ideas of the Alexandrian school of thought, not
+those of the Syrian.  Apollinaris set himself to attack the heretical
+view that there were two "Sons"&mdash;one before all time, the divine Logos,
+and one after the incarnation, Jesus Christ.  In doing so he felt
+constrained to formulate a theory of the union of natures.  He started
+from the Platonic division of human nature into three parts, rational
+soul, animal soul, and body.  He argued that in the statement "the
+Logos became flesh," "flesh" must mean animal soul and body.  He urged
+in proof that it would be absurd to suppose the Logos conditioned by
+human reason; that rational soul was the seat of personality, and that
+if it were associated with the Logos, it would be impossible to avoid
+recognising "two Sons."  He expressly asserted that the humanity of
+Christ was incomplete, contending that this very defect in the human
+nature made possible the unity of His person.  According to
+Apollinaris, then, the union was a composition.  The Logos superseded
+the human reason, and was thus united to body and animal soul.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Apollinarianism was a form of docetism.  In ascribing imperfection to
+the human nature of Christ it <I>eo ipso</I> denied its reality.
+Apollinaris, in fact, said of Christ's reason what the early docetists
+said of His body.  The system is more ingenious than convincing.  It is
+highly artificial.  It provides no intellectual basis for a living
+faith in an incarnate Christ.  The theory, however, was very
+influential in its day, and was intimately connected with the rise of
+monophysitism.  Eutyches, the "father of the monophysites," was
+condemned by a local synod at Constantinople in A.D. 448 on the ground
+that he was "affected by the heresy of Valentinus and Apollinaris."[<A NAME="chap02fn1text"></A><A HREF="#chap02fn1">1</A>]
+Harnack goes so far as to say that "the whole position of the later
+monophysites, thought out to all its conceivable conclusions, is
+already to be found in Apollinaris."  Apollinarianism was condemned at
+the second general council, and there the Church made her first
+declaration, a negative one, on the subject of the hypostatic union.
+In conflict with the heresies which arose in the next two generations,
+she evolved a positive statement of the truth.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE NESTORIAN REACTION
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Opposition to Apollinarianism gave rise to the Nestorian heresy.  The
+original ebionitism had died away, but its spirit and central doctrine
+reappeared in Nestorianism.  Nestorianism might be described as
+ebionitism conforming to the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople.  The
+leaders of the opposition to the Apollinarists of the fifth century
+were their own Syrian countrymen whose headquarters was at Antioch.
+The Antiochians differed from the Apollinarians in the starting-point
+of their Christology and in the controlling motive of their thought.
+While Apollinaris had constructed his Christology on the basis of the
+doctrine of the Trinity, the Antiochians started from the formula
+"perfect alike in deity and humanity."  The reasonings of Apollinaris
+were governed by the thought of redemption.  The fundamental question
+of religion for him was, "How can the closest union between divine and
+human be secured?"  The tendency of the Antiochians, on the other hand,
+was to neglect the interests of Soteriology and to emphasize the
+ethical aspect of Christ's life and teaching.  They put in the
+background the idea of the all-creating, all-sustaining Logos, who took
+man's nature upon Him and in His person deified humanity.  Their
+thought centred on the historic Christ, the Christ of the evangelists.
+They did not revert to crude ebionitism, but they explained the Nicene
+creed from an ebionitic stand-point.  They maintained as against the
+Apollinarians the completeness of Christ's human nature; with equal
+vigour they maintained the essential deity of the Logos.  The "poverty"
+(ebionitism) of their doctrines consisted in their paltry view of the
+hypostatic union.  The union, according to the Nestorians, was
+subsequent to the conception of Jesus.  It was not a personal, but a
+moral union.  It was a conjunction of two co-ordinate entities.  They
+taught that the more the man Jesus acted in accordance with the divine
+promptings, the closer became his union with the Logos.  That is to
+say, the union was relative not absolute.  Thus the union between
+divine and human in Christ differed only in degree from the union of
+the same elements in any good man.  The unity of the Son of God and the
+Son of Mary consisted solely in the identity of name, honour and
+worship.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, led the opposition to Nestorius.  He
+declared that the moment of conception was the moment of the union, and
+that the notion of incarnation involved much more than an association
+of natures.  He maintained that the incarnation was a hypostatic union
+(<I>hénôsis physiké</I>).  He endeavoured to guard against an Apollinarian
+interpretation of his teaching; but in this attempt he was not
+altogether successful.  He asserted the perfection of Christ's humanity
+and the distinction between the two natures.  The perfection, however,
+is compromised, and the distinction rendered purely ideal by his
+further statement that there were "two natures before, but only one
+after the union."  He cited in proof the words of Athanasius, "one
+incarnate nature of God the Word."
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Cyril prevailed.  Nestorius was condemned and the Antiochian school
+discredited.  Cyril's victory, however, was of doubtful value to
+orthodoxy.  His ardent but unbalanced utterances bequeathed to the
+Church a legacy of strife.  His writings, particularly the earlier
+ones, furnished the monophysites with an armoury of weapons.  His
+teaching could not with justice be styled docetic or Apollinarian, but
+its mystic tone was so pronounced that it proved a propaedeutic for
+monophysitism.  The shibboleth of orthodoxy, quoted above, "one
+incarnate nature of God the Word," passed rapidly into the watchword of
+heresy.  Athanasius had used the word "nature" in a broad sense.  The
+monophysites narrowed it down to its later technical meaning.  Thus
+they exalted Christ into a region beyond the ken of mortal man.  The
+incarnation became a mystery pure and simple, unintelligible, calling
+for blind acceptance.  The monophysites, following Cyril, heightened
+the mystery, but, in doing so, they eliminated the reality and the
+human appeal of the incarnate life.  They soon began to argue that,
+since Christ is monophysite, the properties of deity and humanity in
+Him are interchangeable; that therefore, while yet a Babe in the
+manger, He ruled the world with the omniscience and omnipresence of the
+Logos; that while He hanged upon the Cross, His mighty power sustained
+and ordered the universe.  The monophysites professed great jealousy
+for the honour due to the Redeemer.  But the ascription of such
+attributes to Jesus Christ detracts from His honour.  If the nature
+that suffered on the Cross be not distinct from the nature that cannot
+suffer, then the Crucifixion was a sham.  Monophysitism is docetism
+elaborated.  It abandons the Christ of history.  It rules out His
+<I>prokopé</I>.  It ignores a fact, vital to Christology, namely the
+<I>kénôsis</I> or divine self-limitation.  Thus it throws a veil of
+unreality over those facts on which the Christian Faith is built.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM A PRODUCT OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE<BR>
+CURRENTS OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The foregoing sketch of the early Christological heresies exhibits
+monophysitism as a product of two opposite intellectual currents.  A
+man's convictions are settled for him partly by acceptance, partly by
+rejection of what tradition offers or his mind evolves.  The mass mind
+works similarly.  It accepts and rejects, approves and disallows.  The
+stabilisation of a body of mass opinions, such as a heresy, is thus
+determined by opposite forces.  It was so with monophysitism.  Its
+Christian antecedents comprised positive and negative currents.  The
+positive current was docetism, the negative ebionitism.  Docetism,
+originating in apostolic times, passed through many phases, to provide,
+at the end of the fourth century, in its most refined form,
+Apollinarianism, the immediate positive cause of monophysitism.
+Ebionitism, related to docetism as realism to idealism, possessed equal
+vitality and equal adaptability.  It showed itself in various
+humanistic interpretations of Christ.  Of these the most elaborate was
+Nestorianism, which exerted the most insistent and immediate negative
+influence on the early growth of monophysitism.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM AND NON-CHRISTIAN THOUGHT
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+We leave here the subject of the influence of other heresies on
+monophysitism, and proceed to exhibit its affinities with non-Christian
+thought.  At Alexandria, the home of the heresy, two systems of
+philosophy, the Aristotelian and the Neo-Platonist, were strongly
+represented.  Both of these philosophies exercised a profound influence
+upon the origins and upon the later developments of monophysite
+doctrine.  We propose to take, first, the Aristotelian, and then the
+Neo-Platonist philosophy, elucidating those leading ideas in each on
+which the monophysite thinker would naturally fasten, as lending
+intellectual support to his religious views.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Aristotle was held in high estimation by the monophysite leaders,
+particularly in the sixth and seventh centuries.  His works were
+translated into Syriac in the Jacobite schools.  The West owes much to
+these translations.  For it was largely by this agency that his
+metaphysic reached the Arabs, who transmitted it to the West in the
+Middle Ages.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The Aristotelian logic was widely known among the monophysites.  It
+seems to have formed part of their educational curriculum.  Taken apart
+from the rest of the system, the logic produces a type of mind that
+revels in subtle argumentation.  It exalts the form of thought at the
+expense of the matter.  It had this effect on the monophysite
+theologians.  They were trained dialecticians.  They were noted for
+their controversial powers, for their constant appeal to definition,
+for the mechanical precision of their arguments.  These mental
+qualities, excellent in themselves, do not conduce to sound theology.
+Formal logic effects clarity of thought often at the expense of depth.
+It treats thoughts as things.  Procedure, that is proper in the sphere
+of logic, is out of place in psychology and theology.  Concepts such as
+person and nature must be kept fluid, if they are not to mislead.  If
+they are made into hard and fast ideas, into sharply defined
+abstractions, they will be taken to represent discrete psychic
+entities, external to one another as numbers are.  The elusive, Protean
+character of the inter-penetrating realities behind them will be lost
+to view.  The most signal defect of monophysite method is its
+unquestioning submission to the Aristotelian law of contradiction.  The
+intellectual training that makes men acute logicians disqualifies them
+for dealing with the living subject.  The monophysite Christologians
+were subtle dialecticians, but the psychology of Christ's being lay
+outside their competence.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+ARISTOTLE'S CRITICISM OF DUALISM&mdash;A WEAPON <BR>
+IN THE HANDS OF THE MONOPHYSITES
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Leaving the formal element in Aristotle's system, we come to its
+material content.  Some of the prominent ideas of the Aristotelian
+cosmology and psychology reappear in the heresy we are studying.  We
+shall take first the rejection of the Platonic dualism.  Aristotle's
+repeated criticism of his master's theory of ideas is not merely
+destructive.  It formed the starting-point for his own metaphysic.  The
+ideas, he says, simply duplicate the world of existent things.  They do
+not create things or move them; they do not explain genesis or process;
+they merely co-exist with the ideates.  The participation which Plato's
+later theory postulated is inadequate.  A more intimate relation is
+required.  The theory of ideas confronts God with a world, and leaves
+the relation between them unformulated and inexplicable.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+This criticism is of first importance for theology.  Faith as well as
+reason demands a real relation between idea and ideate.  The Christian
+student in the fifth century, familiar with Aristotle's criticism of
+Plato, would inevitably apply it in Christology.  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 ideas.  The Nestorian formula, in effect, juxtaposed the ideal
+Christ and the real Jesus, and left the two unrelated.  This was
+Platonism in Christology.  Aristotle's attack on Plato's system
+provided a radical criticism of Nestorianism.  The monophysite
+theologians were blind to the difference between the Nestorian position
+and that of the orthodox.  They saw that Aristotle had placed a
+powerful weapon in their hands, and they used it indifferently against
+both opposing parties.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+ARISTOTLE'S PSYCHOLOGY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+We turn now to Aristotle's psychology.  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 defect.  It is a
+radical defect, namely, the almost complete absence of the conception
+of personality.  The principle of Aristotle's psychology, like that of
+his metaphysic, is the concept of form and matter.  The soul of man
+comes under the general ontological law.  All existence is divisible
+into grades, the lower grade being the matter whose form is constituted
+by the next highest grade.  Thus there is a graduated scale of being,
+starting from pure matter and rising to pure form.  The inorganic is
+matter for the vegetable kingdom, the vegetable kingdom for the animal
+kingdom; the nutritive process is material for the sensitive, and the
+sensitive for the cognitive.  Man is an epitome of these processes.
+The various parts of his nature are arranged in an ascending scale;
+form is the only cohesive force.  The animal soul is the form of the
+body, born with it, growing with it, dying with it; the two are one in
+the closest union conceivable.  Besides the soul of the body, there is,
+says Aristotle, a soul of the soul.  This is reason, essentially
+different from animal and sensitive soul.  It is not connected with
+organic function.  It is pure intellectual principle.  It is
+immaterial, immortal, the divine element in man.  This reason is not a
+bare unity.  As it appears in human experience, it is not full-grown.
+Potentially it contains all the categories, but the potentiality must
+be actualised.  Consequently reason subdivides into active and passive
+intellect.  The action of the former on the latter, and the response of
+the latter to the former, constitute the development of the mind, the
+education of the truth that is potentially present from the beginning.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+This hierarchy of immaterial entities contains nothing corresponding to
+our idea of personality.  There is in it no principle that is both
+individual and immortal.  Aristotle allows immortality only to the
+universal reason.  The psychic elements are condemned to perish with
+the body.  There is no hope for the parts of the soul which are most
+intimately connected with the individual's experience.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Monophysite Christology shares this fundamental defect.  The
+monophysite thinker attempted to express the union of two natures
+within one experience.  But his psychology, not containing the notion
+of personality, could furnish no principle of synthesis.  An agent in
+the background of life, to combine the multiplicity of experience, is a
+<I>sine qua non</I> of a sound Christology.  Personality was to the
+monophysites a <I>terra incognita</I>; and it was in large measure their
+devotion to Aristotle's system that made them deaf to the teaching of
+the catholic church.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+INTELLECTUALISM AND MYSTICISM COMPLEMENTARY SYSTEMS
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+After this sketch of the Aristotelian features recognisable in
+monophysitism, we turn to the other great pagan philosophy that
+assisted in the shaping of the heresy.  Intellectualism and mysticism
+are closely allied; the two are complementary; they are as mutually
+dependent as are head and heart.  It is not then surprising that
+monophysitism should possess the characteristics of both these schools
+of thought.  The intellectualism of the heresy was largely due, as we
+have shown, to the Aristotelian logic and metaphysic; its mystic
+elements derive, as we proceed to indicate, from Neo-Platonism and
+kindred theosophies.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Alexandria had been for centuries the home of the mystics.  The
+geographical position, as well as the political circumstances of its
+foundation, destined that city to be the meeting-place of West and
+East.  There the wisdom of the Orient met and fought and fused with
+that of the Occident.  There Philo taught, and bequeathed to the
+Neo-Platonists much of his Pythagorean system.  There flourished for a
+while and died fantastic eclectic creeds, pagan theosophies
+masquerading as Christianity.  Gnosticism was a typical product of the
+city.  Valentinus and Basilides and the other gnostics made in that
+cosmopolitan atmosphere their attempts to reconcile Christianity with
+Greek and oriental thought.  There Ammonius Saccas, after his lapse
+from the Christian faith, taught and laid the foundation of
+Neo-Platonism.  Plotinus was the greatest of his disciples, and, though
+he taught at Rome for most of his life, it was in the spirit of
+Alexandria that he wrought his absolute philosophy, the full-orbed
+splendour of the setting sun of Greek thought.  Neo-Platonism did not
+die with Plotinus.  In the middle of the fifth century, when
+monophysitism was at its zenith, Proclus was fashioning an intellectual
+machinery to express the Plotinian system.  The story of Hypatia
+evidences the dominant position of Neo-Platonism in Alexandrian
+culture.  The violence of Cyril's measures against her shows what a
+menace to the Church that philosophy was.  Cyril was not a monophysite,
+but much that he said and did promoted their cause.  Dioscurus, his
+nephew and successor in the see of Alexandria, championed monophysitism
+at the council of Chalcedon.  In later generations Alexandria always
+offered an asylum to exiled monophysite leaders.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+These facts render it impossible to regard the connection between
+Alexandria and monophysitism as fortuitous.  They further suggest that
+Neo-Platonism was the connecting link.  Such in fact it was.
+Monophysitism, we might almost say, was Neo-Platonism in Christian
+dress.  The ethos of the two systems is the same, and the doctrinal
+resemblance is marked.  It was natural that the home of pagan mysticism
+should cradle the kindred system of heretical Christian mysticism.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+NEO-PLATONIST ONTOLOGY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The representative figure amongst the Neo-Platonists is Plotinus.  His
+comprehensive mind gathered up the main threads of Alexandrian thought,
+and wove them into the fabric of a vast speculative system.  The system
+is as much a religion as a philosophy.  It is the triumph of
+uncompromising monism.  The last traces of dualism have been
+eradicated.  God, for Plotinus, is true being and the only being.  He
+is all and in all.  God is an impersonal Trinity, comprising the One,
+the cosmic reason and the cosmic soul.  The One is primal, ineffable,
+behind and beyond all human experience.  All we know of Him is that He
+is the source and union of reason and soul.  Creation is effected by a
+continuous series of emanations from God.  Emanation is not an
+arbitrary act of divine will; it is a necessary consequence of the
+nature of the One.  God must negate Himself, and the process is
+creation.  The further the process of negation is carried, the less
+reality does the created object possess.  Last in the scale comes
+matter, which has no self-subsistence, but is the absolute
+self-negation of God.  We referred in the last chapter to Plotinus'
+favourite illustration.  We may be allowed, perhaps, to repeat it here.
+As light, he says, issues from the sun and grows gradually dimmer,
+until it passes by imperceptible degrees into the dark, so reason
+emanates from God and, passing through the phases of nature, loses its
+essence gradually in its procession, until finally it is derationalised
+and becomes its opposite.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+NEO-PLATONIST PSYCHOLOGY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Human souls are at an intermediate stage of this cosmic process.  Like
+the ray of light which touches both sun and earth, they have contact
+with God and with matter.  They stand midway in creation.  They are
+attracted upwards and downwards.  Reason draws them to God; sense
+chains them to earth.  Their position decides their duty.  (Here the
+philosophy becomes a religion).  The duty of man is to break the
+sensuous chains and set the soul free to return to its home in God.
+This return of the soul to God is attained by the path of knowledge.
+The knowledge that frees is not speculative; for such enhances
+self-consciousness.  It is immediate consciousness indistinguishable
+from unconsciousness.  It is intuitive knowledge.  It is vision in
+which the seer loses himself, and what sees is the same as what is
+seen.  It is the absorption of the soul in the world reason, and so
+with God.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The Neo-Platonist took practical steps to attain this mystic state.  He
+submitted to rule and discipline.  By mortification of the flesh he
+endeavoured to weaken sensuous desire.  The arts of theurgy were
+employed to wean the mind from sensuous knowledge, and to fix
+aspiration on unseen realities.  Contemplation and self-hypnotism were
+widely practised.  In ecstasy the mystic found a foretaste of that
+blissful loss of being, which is the goal and crown of philosophic
+thought.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM AND NEO-PLATONISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+When we compare monophysitism with the system of Plotinus, several
+points of resemblance appear.  There is first the impersonal character
+of the deity.  Monophysitism was not a Trinitarian heresy, and the
+Catholic doctrine of the three persons in the godhead was the official
+creed of the heretical church.  But their theologians refrained from
+laying emphasis upon the distinct personalities of Father, Son and Holy
+Ghost.  Their sympathies were Sabellian to the core, and Sabellian
+heresies were constantly recurring within their communion.  The
+impersonal Trinity, such as Plotinus taught, was thoroughly in keeping
+with their Christology.  They lacked a clear conception of personality
+in the second Person of the Trinity.  It was inevitable that they
+should overlook the same element in the incarnate Christ.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The Neo-Platonic view of matter finds its counterpart in monophysite
+theory.  The monophysites, without formally denying its real existence,
+nursed a Manichean suspicion of it.  It was, to them, the seat of
+illusion; it was an obstacle to spirit, the enemy of spiritual
+development.  If not unreal, it was at any rate unworthy.  The
+association of Christ with matter through His body and through His
+human nature was, in their eyes, a degradation of deity.  That Christ
+took matter up into His being as a permanent element, that He dignified
+the body and glorified human faculties, these facts seemed to the
+monophysite mind improbable, and, if true, devoid of religious
+significance.  It came natural to him to explain Christ's body as a
+phantom.  He was prepared to regard the human nature as unsubstantial.
+The mystic's view of matter, of sense and human existence characterises
+the whole monophysite outlook.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+In the spirit of Plotinus the monophysites conceived the incarnation as
+the supreme example of the <I>unio mystica</I>.  The <I>unio mystica</I> was a
+state of rapture, abnormal and temporary in earthly experience, in
+which the identity of the mystic was actually merged in the cosmic
+reason.  The lower nature disappeared completely into the higher.  It
+was absorption.  This word "absorption" was in common use among the
+heretics.  It was a trite saying among the first generation of the
+monophysites that "the human nature of Christ was absorbed in the
+divine, as a drop of honey in the ocean."  They conceived His thought
+as lost in the universal reason, His will as surrendered to the will of
+God, His human affections as fused in the fire of divine feeling, His
+body as a phantom.  They could not admit that He lived the real life of
+a real man.  They could not see the value of such a life.
+Neo-Platonism had paralysed their optic nerve.  Thinkers such as the
+Christologians of Alexandria, imbued with the spirit of Neo-Platonism,
+had no motive for preserving the distinct subsistence of Christ's human
+nature.  It was their boast that their Ideal had faced and overcome and
+trampled on the lower elements of His being.  He was a proof from fact
+that body and sense and all that is distinctively human could be
+sublimated into the universal substance, which is the primary effluence
+of the Plotinian One.  In a word, the incarnate Christ was, to them,
+the personification of the Neo-Platonist <I>unio mystica</I>.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+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 life.  Neo-Platonism was a religion.  Its speculative aspect was
+subordinate to its practical.  A knowledge of the soul's position in
+creation and of its destiny laid the philosopher under strict
+obligation.  Fasting and self-denial were essential preliminaries to
+the higher mystic practices.  Ecstasy could not be reached until body
+and sense had been starved into complete submission.  Monophysitism
+adopted this tradition, and made ascesis the central duty of the
+Christian life.  The monophysite church became celebrated for the
+length and rigidity of its fasts.  The monastic element dominated its
+communion.  Indeed, it is hardly too much to say that the monophysite
+movement, on its external side, was an attempt to capture the Church
+for monastic principles.  The heresy drew its inspiration from the
+cloister.  The Christ of the monophysites had withdrawn from the market
+to the wilderness; so His followers must needs go out of the world to
+follow in His steps.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<A NAME="chap02fn1"></A>
+
+<P CLASS="footnote">
+[<A HREF="#chap02fn1text">1</A>] Harnack, "History of Dogma," vol. iv. chap. ii. p. 160.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR><BR>
+
+<A NAME="chap03"></A>
+
+<H3 ALIGN="center">
+CHAPTER III
+</H3>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITE DOCTRINE
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The distinctive doctrine of monophysitism, that from which the name of
+the heresy is taken, is the assertion that there is but one nature, the
+divine nature, in Christ.  There existed some difference of opinion
+among the monophysites as to whether any degree of reality might be
+ascribed to the human nature.  Some were prepared to allow it
+conceptual reality; they would grant that Christ had been diphysite
+momentarily, that He was "out of two natures."  But that admission is
+quite inadequate.  It amounts to no more than the paltry concession
+that Christ's human nature before the incarnation is conceivable as a
+separate entity.  All monophysites united in condemning the diphysite
+doctrine that after the incarnation Christ was and is "in two natures."
+Such a Christ they would not worship.  It was "the image with two faces
+that the Council of Chalcedon had set up."[<A NAME="chap03fn1text"></A><A HREF="#chap03fn1">1</A>]  They adopted the
+Athanasian phrase, "One incarnate nature of God the Word," as their
+battle-cry.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Monophysitism can make out a strong <I>prima facie</I> case.  It is
+attractive at first sight.  The heretical formula seems simpler and
+more natural than the catholic.  The unity of nature appears a
+corollary of the unity of person.  Human personality is ordinarily
+assumed to be monophysite; so it is natural to make the same assumption
+as to divine personality.  The simplicity of the doctrine is, however,
+all on the surface.  It will not bear examination.  As a definition of
+Christian faith it is useless.  It cannot account for the recorded
+facts of Christ's life.  The facts of His body, of His mind, of His
+sufferings refuse to fit into it.  It affords no foundation for belief
+in His transcendent work.  No intelligible doctrine of redemption can
+be built upon it.  It contains no germ of hope for mankind.  Therefore
+the Church in the name of Christ and on behalf of humanity rejected it.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Although the heresy has been officially condemned, it should none the
+less be studied.  It is improbable that any one in our time will defend
+the formula, or openly profess the doctrines that follow from it.  But,
+though not recognised as such, it is an ever-present and instant menace
+to the Faith.  Monophysite tendencies are inherent in religious
+thought.  The metaphysical idea, on which it rests, still has a
+powerful hold over the human mind.  Spiritually-minded men are
+especially liable to this form of error.  It is a mistake to think that
+Christological questions were settled once and for all in the fifth
+century.  Each generation has to settle them afresh.  Accordingly, to
+exhibit the consequences of the monophysite formula, to show how wrong
+abstract ideas develop into wrong concrete ideas and falsify Christian
+practice, is a task of practical and present-day importance.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+CLASSIFICATION OF MONOPHYSITE ERRORS
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Two classes of erroneous beliefs result from a misconception of the
+relation between God and man in Christ.  There arise, on the one hand,
+false opinions about the deity of Christ, and on the other, false
+opinions as to His manhood.  We shall adopt this classification as we
+investigate the doctrinal consequences of the monophysite formula.  It
+is the method followed in one of the earliest systematic criticisms of
+the heresy.  Leo's Tome, or letter to Flavian, contains a lucid
+statement of the catholic doctrine of the incarnation, and an acute
+analysis of the system of Eutyches, the heresiarch.  He summarises the
+errors of Eutyches under two heads; there are two main counts in his
+indictment of the heresy.  Eutyches, he contends, makes Jesus Christ
+"deus passibilis et homo falsus."  Eutyches and his followers
+compromised both deity and humanity.  The deity becomes passible, the
+humanity unreal.  All the monophysite misbeliefs can be classified
+under one or other of these two heads.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE CONCEPT "IMPASSIBILITY" AS APPLIED TO DEITY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+We shall take first those errors that compromise the nature of the
+deity, and shall preface our analysis by an explanation of the meaning
+of the term "deus impassibilis."  The impassibility of God is the
+corner-stone of spiritual monotheism.  Christianity owes it, as a
+philosophic doctrine, largely to Aristotle.  He conceived deity as
+"actus purus," as the One who moves without being moved, a "causa sui."
+The popular gods of Greece were passible; they were possible objects of
+sense; they were acted on largely as man is acted on.  They had a
+beginning, and were subject to many of the processes of time.  They
+were swayed by human motives.  They were, at times, angry, afraid,
+unsatisfied, ambitious, jealous.  Aristotle gave to the world the
+conception of a transcendent God, a being who is real and yet is
+"without body, parts and passions," who cannot receive idolatrous
+worship, and is not an object of sense.  Impassibility was one of the
+highest attributes of this being.  The attribute does not involve or
+imply absence of feeling.  Originally it had no reference to feeling,
+in the psychological sense of that word.  It certainly excludes
+incidentally the lower, specifically human feelings, feelings caused by
+external stimuli, feelings due to want or to lack of power.  It does
+not exclude the higher affections from the deity.  Even in the <I>nóêsis
+noêseôs</I> of Aristotle, there is room for the transcendent bliss of
+divine self-contemplation.  Much more in the Christian God is there
+room for spontaneous feeling, springing from His own nature, the
+necessary concomitant of thought and will.  Impassibility is a
+comprehensive attribute.  Originally negative, it soon acquired a rich
+positive connotation.  An impassible God is one who is outside space
+and time.  The attribute connotes creative power, eternity, infinity,
+permanence.  A passible God is corruptible, <I>i.e.</I> susceptible to the
+processes of becoming, change, and decay.  If to-day theists have to be
+on their guard against debased conceptions of deity, in the plausible
+garb of an "invisible king," of a finite or suffering God, much more
+was such caution necessary in the early centuries of the Christian era.
+Christians who came daily and hourly into contact with polytheistic
+beliefs and practices had to be very jealous for the concept of
+impassibility.  It represented to them all that was distinctive in the
+highest region of their Faith.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Monophysitism, as we proceed to show, compromised this article of the
+Faith.  Its adherents did not, perhaps, do so intentionally.  In fact,
+the first generation of monophysites maintained that their definition
+safeguarded the impassibility.  It was zeal for the honour of the Son
+of God that induced them to deny Him all contact with humanity.  Their
+good intentions, however, could not permanently counteract the evil
+inherent in their system.  In later generations the evil came to the
+surface.  Theopaschitism, the doctrine that openly denies the
+impassibility of the godhead, flourished in the monophysite churches.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONISM ENTAILS A DEBASED CONCEPTION OF DEITY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The metaphysical basis of monophysitism made this result inevitable.
+Extremes meet.  Extreme spirituality readily passes into its opposite.
+It cuts the ground from under its own feet.  It soars beyond its
+powers, and falls into the mire of materialism.  Illustrations of this
+fact can be found in the history of philosophy.  The Stoics, for
+instance, contrived to be both pantheists and materialists.  Coming
+nearer to our own time, we find Hegelianism explained in diametrically
+opposite ways.  After Hegel's death his disciples split into opposing
+camps; one party maintained that the real was spirit, the other that it
+was matter.  Each party claimed the authority of the master for their
+view.  The divergence is easy to explain.  From spiritual monism it is
+a short step to materialistic monism.  For the monist, all is on one
+level of being.  He may by constant effort keep that level high.  But
+gravity will act.  We are more prone to degrade God to our level, than
+to rise to His.  The same truth can be put <I>in abstracto</I>.  Unless the
+relation between God and the world be preserved as a true relation, the
+higher term will sooner or later fall to the level of the lower, and be
+lost in it.  This rule holds as well in movements of religious thought.
+The monophysite strove for a lofty conception of deity but achieved a
+low one.  He undermined the doctrine of impassibility by the very
+measures he took to secure it.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+In the technical language of Christology the monophysites' debased
+conception of deity was a consequence of "confounding the natures."
+Attributes and actions, belonging properly only to Christ's humanity,
+were ascribed recklessly to His divinity.  The test phrase "theotokos,"
+invaluable as a protest against Nestorianism, became a precedent for
+all sorts of doctrinal extravagancies.  The famous addition to the
+Trisagion, "who wast crucified for us," which for a time won
+recognition as sound and catholic, was first made by the monophysite
+Bishop of Antioch.[<A NAME="chap03fn2text"></A><A HREF="#chap03fn2">2</A>]  Both these phrases have scriptural authority,
+and they are justified by the <I>communicatio idiomatum</I>.  But they are
+liable to misuse and misinterpretation.  All depended on how they were
+said and who said them.  The monophysite meant one thing by them, the
+catholic another.  The <I>arrière pensée</I> of the monophysite gave them a
+wrong turn.  He was always on the look-out for paradox in Christ's
+life.  He emphasised such phrases as appeared to detract from the
+reality of His human experiences.  He spoke of Christ as "ruling the
+universe when He lay in the manger," or as "directing the affairs of
+nations from the Cross."  The catholic can approve these phrases; in
+the mouth of a monophysite they have a heretical sound.  They suggest a
+passible God; they degrade the infinite to the level of the finite.
+The monophysite confounds the natures, and so he has no right to appeal
+to the <I>communicatio idiomatum</I>.  Unless the <I>idiomata</I> are admitted as
+such, unless they are preserved in their distinctness, there can be no
+<I>communicatio</I> between them.  If they are fused, they cannot act and
+react upon each other.  The monophysite, by identifying the natures,
+forfeits the right to use the term "Theotokos" and the Trisagion
+addition.  On his lips their inevitable implication is a finite
+suffering God.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Monophysitism was not originally or <I>per se</I> a Trinitarian heresy.
+Equally with catholics and Nestorians its adherents accepted the Nicene
+definition.  They professed to believe in one God in three co-equal
+persons.  This belief, firmly held in all that it involves, would have
+kept them from attributing passibility to the Godhead, and ultimately
+have neutralised the errors of their Christology.  But their
+Christology corrupted their theology.  Abandoning all vital relation
+between God and man in Christ, they abandoned the relation in the
+Godhead.  The internal and external relations of the Godhead are
+mutually dependent.  If there be no trinity of persons, the incarnation
+is impossible.  Were God a bare monad, He could not impart Himself and
+remain Himself.  The fact that there are related persons in the deity
+is the only justification for the use of the phrases discussed in the
+previous paragraph.  When the catholic says, "God was born, suffered,
+died," he is right, because his presupposition is right.  When the
+monophysite uses the same words, he is wrong, because his
+presupposition is wrong.  The catholic preserves in the background of
+his thought the distinction between the <I>ousía</I> and the threefold
+<I>hypóstasis</I>, between the essential godhead and the three persons.  So
+he is in no danger of ascribing passion to the essence or to the
+persons of Father or Holy Spirit.  When he says "God was born," he is
+compressing two statements into one.  He means "Christ was born, and
+Christ was God."  Not in respect of what He has in common with the
+other persons of the Trinity, but in respect of His property of sonship
+did He lower Himself to the plane of suffering.  The catholic holds not
+a suffering God, but a suffering divine person.  He maintains an
+impassible God, but a passible Christ.  A dead God is a contradiction
+in terms; a Christ who died is the hope of humanity.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Monophysite theology became involved in further embarrassments.
+Unwillingness to attribute passibility to God, coupled with the desire
+to remain in some sort trinitarians, forced many of the monophysites
+into the Sabellian position.  Deity, they said in effect, did not
+suffer in the second person of the trinity, because there is no such
+person.  The persons of the trinity are simply characters assumed by
+the monadic essence, or aspects under which men view it.  On this
+showing, the Logos, who was incarnate, had no personal subsistence.
+The relation between God and man ever remains impersonal.  Christ,
+<I>qua</I> divine, was only an aspect or effluence of deity.  This, for the
+monophysite, was the one alternative to the doctrine of a passible God.
+He was faced with a desperate dilemma.  If he retained his belief in a
+transcendent God, he must surrender belief in a triune God.  He could
+choose between the two; but his Christology permitted no third choice.
+For him, the only alternative to a finite God was a lone God.  As a
+result monophysite theology oscillated between denial of the
+impassibility of God and denial of his three-fold personality.  In
+either case the orthodox doctrine of the godhead was abandoned.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+One of the stock questions propounded by the catholics to the
+monophysites was, "Was the trinity incomplete when the Son of God was
+on earth?"  The question is crudely expressed, as it ignores the type
+of existence proper to spiritual personality; but it contains a
+sufficiently sound <I>ad hominem</I> argument.  The monophysite could not
+say "yes," or he would then be driven to assert a passible God.  If he
+said "no," his reply was tantamount to the assertion that the whole
+essence of the Godhead was incarnate.  The logic of this dilemma was so
+cogent that not a few monophysites succumbed to it, and adopted a
+position similar to that of the earlier Patripassianists.  These
+seceded from the monophysite church, and founded an independent sect,
+called the Theopaschites.  As often happens, the sect is, doctrinally,
+more representative than the parent body.  The Theopaschites were the
+thinkers who had the courage to push the monophysite doctrines to their
+logical conclusions.  Those who did not secede, unable to defend their
+own doctrinal position, retaliated with the counter-charge of
+tetratheism.  This stroke was simply a confession of weakness.  Monism
+was strangling their Christianity at every turn.  Instead of breaking
+free from it, they pretended that their opponents were polytheists.
+The catholic, however, was neither monist nor pluralist.  The
+incarnation was not the addition of a fourth divine being to the
+trinity.  The essence of the godhead remained complete, unchanged and
+impassible; 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 God.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM AND ISLAM&mdash;SABELLIANISM THE CONNECTING LINK
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+It is in place here to point out the somewhat intimate connection that
+existed between monophysitism and Islam.  The monophysites held the
+outposts of the Empire.  Mahomet came into contact with them, and it
+was probably from them that he formed his conception of Christian
+doctrine.  The later history of the monophysite churches shows that
+they often secured a large measure of toleration at the hands of the
+Caliphs, while the diphysites were being rigorously persecuted.  Lapses
+to Islam were not infrequent, and in some periods apostasy on a large
+scale occurred.  Cases are on record even of monophysite patriarchs who
+abjured their faith and joined the followers of the Prophet.  The
+connection between monophysitism and Islam was not fortuitous.  There
+was a doctrinal affinity between them.  Both systems were rigidly
+monotheistic.  Both degraded the notion of deity by a perverse attempt
+to exalt it.  Both cut redemption and mediation out of their religion.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The family likeness between the two systems does not extend beyond the
+realm of the doctrine of supreme deity.  In other respects the religion
+of the sword and the religion of love have little or nothing in common.
+Crescent and Cross are poles asunder.  The monophysites as a body
+remained nominally and in intention Christians and trinitarians.  But
+in the doctrinal area specified the resemblance holds.  It could hardly
+be otherwise.  Sabellian tendencies were always present and powerful in
+the monophysite communion, and Sabellianism is a long step in the
+direction of Islam.  Sabellius taught in effect, "Allah is one."  The
+three persons, for him, were only aspects of the one indivisible deity.
+There are no distinct entities corresponding to the names of Father,
+Son and Holy Spirit.  Sabellianism is intimately associated with monism
+in all its phases.  Monophysitism being essentially monist could not
+escape the taint.  Whether Sabellianism made the heretics monophysites,
+or monophysitism made them Sabellians, we need not inquire.  The two
+creeds are bound up in the same bundle by the tie of monism.  The
+relation of the Son to the Father and the relation of the Son to
+humanity are vitally connected.  Misconception of the one relation
+entails misconception of the other.  Denial of relation in the godhead
+goes hand in hand with denial of relation in Christ.  If the theologian
+reduces the latter to bare unity, he does the same for the former.
+Catholic Christology is thus a necessary deduction from trinitarian
+dogma.  Nicaea necessitated Chalcedon.  To safeguard the distinction of
+persons in the godhead, a distinction in the natures of Christ was
+essential.  To preserve intact the latter distinction, the proprium of
+the Son and His personal subsistence had to be kept distinct from the
+proprium and subsistence of the Father.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE CHRISTOLOGICAL ERRORS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+We leave here the area of theology and come to that of Christology.  We
+have exhibited the monophysite errors with respect to the doctrine of
+primal deity; we now proceed to analyse their views with respect to the
+incarnate Christ.  The former subject leads the thinker into deep
+water; the layman is out of his depth in it; so it does not furnish
+material for a popular controversy.  It is otherwise with the latter
+subject.  Here the issue is narrowed to a point.  It becomes a question
+of fact, namely, "Was Christ a real man?"  The question and most of the
+answers given to it are readily intelligible, and they naturally gave
+rise to heated controversy.  Theopaschitism is, as we have shown, a
+tendency inherent in the heresy, but one slow to come to the surface,
+and one easily counter-acted and suppressed by the personal piety of
+the monophysite.  Its docetism, the assertion of the unreality of
+Christ's human nature, lies on the surface.  No amount of personal
+piety can neutralise it.  It has had, and still has, a crippling effect
+on the faith of devout Christians.  Even where it is not carried to the
+length of formal heresy, it spreads a haze of unreality over the gospel
+story, and dulls the edge of belief.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The second count of Leo's charge against the monophysites was, it will
+be remembered, that their presentation of Christ made Him "homo
+falsus."  Under this heading "homo falsus" may be classed a wide group
+of erroneous tenets, ranging from the crudities of early docetism to
+the subtleties of Apollinarianism.  We propose to sketch those of major
+importance.  No attempt will be made to take them in their historical
+order or historical setting.  Further, it is not implied that they all
+formed part of the official doctrine of the monophysite church.  The
+standard of belief in that communion was constantly varying, and the
+history of its dogma would need a work to itself.  We shall deal with
+those Christological errors, which, whether part of the official
+monophysite creed or not, are logical results of the monophysite
+formula.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Unreality may be predicated of Christ's human nature as a whole, or in
+respect of its parts.  Consubstantiality with humanity may be denied of
+the whole of his human nature; or deficiency in one or other of the
+essential constituents of human nature may be alleged.  We shall deal
+first with those errors that concern the entire nature, coming later to
+the errors in respect of one or more of its several parts.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Suspicion of the reality of Christ's human nature as a whole is
+characteristic of all monophysite thought.  This suspicion, not always
+formulated or expressed, is everywhere present.  If the monophysites
+admitted the fact of His true manhood, they denied or neglected the
+religious value of that fact.  Their spurious spirituality rebelled
+against a dogma which seemed to tie the infinite down to a point in
+history.  The fact that the Son of God lived a perfect human life
+contained no inspiration for them.  They idealised the incarnation.  It
+was not for them a historical event.  This is a corollary to the
+proposition, maintained by their great champion, Philoxenus, that "no
+addition to His person took place."  It is tantamount to saying that
+the union of divine and human in Christ is purely conceptual.  When the
+monophysite faced the question, "What change in Christ did the
+incarnation effect?" his formula constrained him to reply, "It made no
+change."  The deity of the person was not denied.  The pre-existent
+Logos and the Christ who walked in Galilee were admittedly one and the
+same.  The second person of the trinity and Jesus of Nazareth were one
+personality.  If Bethlehem made no change in that personality, it was
+purposeless, and the import of the incarnation disappears.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE MONOPHYSITE THEORY OF A COMPOSITION OF NATURES
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+For the consistent monophysites, then, the human nature, as a psychic
+entity with peculiar properties, did not survive the incarnation.  They
+did, however, allow it a verbal reality.  They admitted a composition
+of natures, and this composition provided for them whatever degree of
+reality the incarnation possessed.  On this point their Christology
+passed through several stages of development, the later stages showing
+progressive improvement on the earlier.  They distinguished three
+senses of the word "composition."  First, they said, it might mean
+"absorption," as when a drop of water is absorbed in a jar of wine.
+Second, it might imply the transmutation of constituent particles, as
+when a third unlike thing is formed from two.  Thirdly, there is
+composition when, from the association of two whole and entire things,
+a third whole and entire compound thing is formed without loss to the
+components.  They illustrated the third mode of composition by the
+union in man of soul and body.  The pre-Eutychian monophysites regarded
+the hypostatic union as a composition in the first sense of the word.
+They spoke of Christ's human nature as absorbed in the divine, as is "a
+drop of vinegar in the ocean."  Eutyches adopted the term in its second
+sense.  He taught that the Word became flesh[<A NAME="chap03fn3text"></A><A HREF="#chap03fn3">3</A>] "as the atmosphere
+assumes bodily form and becomes rain or snow under the influence of the
+wind, and as water becomes ice by reason of the cold air."  Philoxenus
+in a later generation saw that both these positions were wrong and the
+similes misleading.  He taught a hypostatic union totally devoid of
+confusion or loss or commutation of the elements of the two natures.
+To illustrate his meaning he used the simile supplied by the
+"Athanasian" creed, "as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so
+God and Man is one Christ."  This position is a vast improvement on
+that of the original monophysites.  It was ground gained to secure the
+admission that in any sense Christ was very man.  But the monophysites
+never learned the true manner of the union, namely, that Christ was
+"one; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the
+Manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of Substance but by
+unity of Person."
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Read in this connection the assertion that God and man is one Christ,
+"as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man," is orthodox; read apart
+from this context, it is ambiguous.  If the simile be kept as a simile,
+as a mere suggestion or hint as to how, in general, two may compose one
+and yet remain two, then no exception can be taken to it.  If, however,
+the clause be interpreted as a proportion sum, assigning corresponding
+values to the different terms, then it savours strongly of
+Apollinarianism.  Most monophysites, like many moderns, probably
+understood it in the mathematical sense.  Christ, they argued, was God
+and man, just as man is rational soul and body; the terms are in
+proportion; therefore the divine nature was the rational soul, and the
+human nature was the body.  They forgot that the free act of the whole
+divine person in assuming man underlies the union and makes it
+efficacious; they gave <I>sárx</I>; the narrow meaning of <I>sôma</I>, they set
+before themselves the picture, not of the infinite robing in the
+finite, but of the union of mind and matter.  Consequently they
+habitually spoke of the Logos, as assuming, not man or a human nature,
+but a body.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Such in its varying phases was the monophysite doctrine of composition.
+At its worst, it contained a direct denial of the real humanity of
+Christ.  At its best, it falls far short of the catholic doctrine of
+His real, perfect and complete humanity.  The permanent assumption of
+human nature into the transcendent personality had no meaning for the
+heretic party.  If it had taken place, it was, they thought, merely
+momentary, with no after-effects, the passing of a summer cloud across
+the face of the sun.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+We have considered the monophysites' view of Christ's human nature,
+regarded as an integral psychic entity.  It is evident that they either
+undervalued it or denied its existence.  The more consistent thinkers
+of their party maintained that the incarnation had made no difference
+in the being of Christ, and that therefore His human nature had no
+objective reality.  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 Christ, that its net result was a composition.
+Further analysis showed that this concession was rendered nugatory;
+that in whatever sense the word "composition" was taken, it was
+inadequate to express the hypostatic union; that the composition proved
+in its first significance illusory, in its second, hybridous, in its
+third, Apollinarianist.  We pass on now to review the human nature in
+its constituent parts, and it will be seen that the heretical formula
+undermines faith in respect of each several part.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE "PARTS" OF HUMAN NATURE
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+From the standpoint of psychology human nature is divisible into parts.
+The division must not be taken as absolute; for the whole is a unity,
+and the parts are not discrete <I>quanta</I>.  The division is rather a
+classification of psychic states according to predominating features.
+The classification corresponds, however, to the facts of experience,
+and so psychology is justified in making use of it.  We shall adopt it
+in our investigation of the psychology of Christ.  The sharpest
+dividing line is that between immaterial and material, between soul and
+body.  The states of the soul fall into three well-marked groups,
+thought, will, and feeling.  The physical and the psychic are not
+always distinguishable.  Still more uncertain and tentative is the
+identification in the psychic of cognitive, volitional, and emotional
+faculties.  But in every man these parts are found.  They are
+constituents of human nature.  There may be other elements as yet
+unanalysed; but there can be no complete humanity that is deficient in
+respect of any of these parts.  We propose to take them singly in the
+above order, to show their existence in the historic Christ, and to
+expose the monophysite attempts to explain them away.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+CHRIST'S BODY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+It is obvious to an unprejudiced reader of the gospels that Christ's
+pre-resurrection body was real and normal.  It was an organism of flesh
+and blood, of the same constitution and structure as ours.  It occupied
+space, and was ordinarily subject to the laws of space.  It was visible
+and tangible.  It shared the natural processes of birth, growth, and
+metabolism.  At the resurrection a catastrophic change took place in
+it.  It was still a body.  It was still Christ's body.  Continuity was
+preserved.  The evidences of continuity were external, and so strong as
+to convince doubters.  We cannot fathom either the change or the
+continuity.  What we know is that after the resurrection the body was
+not so subject as before to the laws of space.  It was, it would seem,
+of finer atoms and subtler texture.  It had reached the height of
+physical being, and development apparently had ceased.  It was the
+entelechy of the human body.  It was still real, though no longer
+normal.  To employ paradox, it was natural of the species
+"supernatural."  It was the natural body raised to a higher power.  It
+was natural to human denizens of a higher world.  Body's function is
+two-fold.  It both limits the soul and expresses it.  It narrows the
+activity of the person to a point, and thus serves as a fine instrument
+for action upon matter.  At the same time it draws out the
+potentialities of the soul and fixes its development.  The
+post-resurrection body was apparently less limitative and more
+expressive.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The foregoing considerations may be summed up in the form of three
+dogmata, all of which orthodox Christianity teaches.  These are, first,
+that Christ's pre-resurrection body was real and natural; second, that
+His resurrected and ascended body is real and supernatural; third, that
+there was a real continuity, whether by development or by epigenesis
+between the two.  In all these points the monophysites missed the
+truth.  Their presuppositions misled them.  As monists they were
+inclined to regard matter as sinful.  They could not conceive the
+infinite donning a soiled robe.  "Our body with its hateful wants"
+could not, they thought, be a tabernacle for the Logos.  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
+thinking.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Since such was the background of their thought it was inevitable that
+definitely heretical doctrines should result.  In the first place we
+meet the flat denial of the reality of Christ's body.  Even in
+apostolic days those who held this heresy were found.  They denied that
+Christ had come in the flesh.  They were styled docetists or
+phantasiasts.  According to them the body had no objective reality.  It
+was a phantom.  Its reality was entirely subjective.  It was the effect
+produced on the perceptions of those who associated with the mysterious
+spirit-being.  The Logos, as viewed by the phantasiasts, at the
+incarnation struck His being into the bounds of time, but not of space.
+Divine personality, they thought, did not require and could not use a
+material medium.  This doctrine was not part of the official
+monophysite creed; but, as pointed out in the previous chapter,
+monophysitism was a lineal descendant of docetism, and always showed
+traces of its lineage.  The saying that, "Christ brought His body from
+heaven," was commonly attributed to Eutyches.  He denied having said
+it, but, at any rate, the general feeling of his followers was that
+Christ's physical nature was divine and therefore not consubstantial
+with ours.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Such doctrines destroy the discipline of faith in the resurrection.
+The radical difference between the natural and the resurrection body is
+blurred by them.  The immense change is abolished.  The resurrection
+becomes purely a spiritual change, which even a non-Christian could
+accept.  The body, according to the tenor of monophysite teaching, was
+spirit before the resurrection and spirit after it.  Thus the ascension
+too becomes purely spiritual.  It is shorn of half its significance.
+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 heaven,
+namely, a glorified human body.  If He brought that body with Him from
+heaven, the main significance of His human dispensation falls to the
+ground.  The incarnation becomes unreal, illusory, impotent.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+An offshoot of docetism that flourished among the monophysites is the
+aphthartodocetic heresy.  This is of considerable historical
+importance.  Large numbers of the Syrian and Egyptian monophysites
+embraced it, and seceded from the parent church.  It became part of the
+official creed of Armenian Christianity, and that church has not
+repudiated it to this day.  There are good, though hardly conclusive,
+grounds for holding that the emperor Justinian, profound theologian and
+life-long champion of orthodoxy, was converted to the heretical theory
+in the last few months of his life.[<A NAME="chap03fn4text"></A><A HREF="#chap03fn4">4</A>]  Aphthartodocetism, affirming
+the reality of Christ's body, denies that it was subject to the wear
+and tear of life.  The body, as this heresy taught, was superior to
+natural process; it was neither corrupted nor corruptible.  The term
+"corruptibility" has the wide significance of organic process, that is
+the lot of all created living things.  A milder form of the heresy
+asserted that Christ's body was corruptible but was not corrupted.
+Aphthartodocetism springs from a spurious spirituality, from a
+fastidiousness that has no place in true religion.  It is symptomatic
+of Manicheanism, which associates matter with sin.  Christians affirm
+sinlessness of Christ's humanity; they do not affirm immateriality of
+His body.  The monophysites, in abandoning the true Christology, were
+predisposed to the infection of this heresy.  A being in whom organic
+process was present seemed to these heretics no fit object of worship.
+They called the orthodox Ctistolatrae or Phthartolatrae, worshippers of
+the created or corruptible.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Monophysites of all shades of opinion united in condemning the practice
+of worshipping Christ's human nature.  That practice was in their eyes
+both idle and injurious; idle, because the human nature did not exist
+as a separate entity; injurious, because it fixed the mind of the
+worshipper on the finite.  In consequence they were much opposed to all
+observances based on a belief in His humanity.  Images or other
+representations of Him in human form seemed to them idolatrous.  The
+monophysite church was not directly concerned in the iconoclastic
+controversy, but their doctrines were indirectly responsible for it.
+In fact the great monophysites, Severus and Philoxenus, have been
+styled "the fathers of the iconoclasts."
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM BLIND TO THE DUAL CHARACTER OF CHRIST'S EXPERIENCE
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Such were the difficulties and errors into which their Christology
+forced the monophysites with respect to Christ's body.  Difficulties
+equally great and errors equally fatal attended their attempt to
+conceive the conjunction of psychic elements with the divine person.
+Their formula was too narrow.  It compelled them to shut their eyes to
+one outstanding fact, namely, the duality of Christ's earthly
+experience.  This fact confronts the reader on every page of the
+gospels.  The duality is deep-seated; it extends to each psychic
+element, yet stops short of the personality.  In the world of Christ's
+nature there are two hemispheres.  His experiences are on two planes.
+In both of these hemispheres or planes we find thought, will, and
+feeling.  His thought on the higher plane is radically different in
+mode and scope from His thought on the lower plane.  The two are of a
+different order.  The same difference holds with respect to the other
+two psychic elements.  We propose to exemplify this assertion, first,
+in the case of cognition, and then in the case of will and feeling.
+This procedure will simplify the task of exposing the further
+consequences of the monophysite Christology.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE DUALITY OF CHRIST'S COGNITION
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The duality of Christ's intellectual experience is evident to a New
+Testament student who has any acquaintance with psychology.  We find in
+Christ two cognitive faculties with two dominant universes of thought
+and knowledge.  On occasions He speaks and acts as if He read at a
+glance all the secrets of nature and the human heart, as if all time
+past, present, and future was an open book to him, as if He were in the
+counsels of the Most High.  On those occasions divine intuition
+superseded in Him the slow and faulty methods of human intelligence;
+thought was vision, intellect intuition, knowledge omniscience.  Thus
+His divine nature cognised and knew.  That, however, is only one half
+of the picture.  On other occasions his mind appears to have been
+perfectly human.  His intelligence and perceptive faculties differed
+not essentially from ours.  He asked questions and sought information.
+He used human categories.  He progressed in wisdom.  The development of
+His mind was gradual.  His knowledge was relative to His age and
+surroundings.  Memory and obliviscence, those complementary and perhaps
+constituent elements of soul-being, attention, sensation, recognition,
+and discursive reasoning, all these exhibitions of the workings of the
+normal mind appeared in Christ.  In this manner His human nature
+cognised and knew.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM ENTAILS THE APOLLINARIAN VIEW OF CHRIST'S <BR>
+HUMAN NATURE AS MERELY AN ANIMATED BODY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The Catholic welcomes these evidences of the duality of Christ's
+intellectual life.  On the theoretical side, they confirm the central
+dogma of orthodox Christology.  On the practical side, they give him
+authority for seeking Christ's sympathy in matters intellectual.  He
+realises that since Christ understands the education of the mind and
+can share his intellectual difficulties, there is hope for the
+redemption and regeneration of the highest part of his nature.  The
+monophysite finds neither support for his dogma, nor inspiration for
+life, in the fact that Christ had a human mind.  He is blind to the
+fact.  He has seen half the picture and regards it as the whole.  His
+ideal is a being in whom intuition supersedes intellect, whose
+knowledge is immediate, absolute, and complete.  The orthodox who held
+that Christ had and, at ordinary times, used a human reason, perfect of
+its kind, but still human in all the implications of the word, were in
+his eyes Agnoëtae; they were unbelievers who asserted the ignorance of
+Christ and set bounds to the vision and knowledge of the infinite.  The
+monophysite would modify his opinions and approach the catholic
+position on other doctrinal points, but never on this.  He might be
+persuaded to admit that Christ's body and "animal soul" were real and
+human, but to the consubstantiality of Christ's mind with man's he
+would not subscribe.  The Apollinarian strain in monophysitism was
+persistent.  The later monophysites never succeeded in banishing it
+from their system.  By Apollinarianism the humanity of Christ is
+crippled in its highest member.  It is a realm shorn of its fairest
+province.  According to Apollinaris, all that Christ assumed was an
+animated body.  His theory is like an ingenious system of canal locks
+for letting divine personality descend from the upper to the lower
+waters.  The ingenuity displayed in it condemns it.  It is an
+artificial makeshift.  The psychology on which it rests is antiquated.
+The picture of Christ it presents does not correspond to the recorded
+facts of His life.  Christ's human nature, as chiselled by the
+Apollinarian sculptor, is a torso.  Such an image fails to satisfy the
+demands of religious feeling, and the doctrines, Apollinarian and
+monophysite, that enshrine it are therefore valueless.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+TWO WILLS IN CHRIST
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+We here leave the subject of cognition and pass to that of volition.
+Orthodoxy teaches that Christ had two wills.  This doctrine has a
+double basis.  In the first place, it is a corollary of the doctrine of
+two natures.  In the second, it is established by the recorded facts of
+the gospel narrative.  To take first the <I>a priori</I> argument.  A nature
+without a will is inconceivable.  A cognitive faculty without the
+dynamic of the volitional would be a machine without driving force.
+The absurdity of the supposition, indeed, is not fully brought out by
+the simile.  For we can consider the machine at rest; it would then
+have existence and potential activity.  Will, however, is essential to
+the existence as well as to the activity of thought.  The connection
+between them is vital to both.  The psychologist distinguishes the
+respective parts each plays in life and marks off faculties to
+correspond to each.  But his distinction is only provisional.  The two
+develop <I>pari passu</I>, they are never separable; they act and re-act on
+one another.  Without some degree of attention there is no thought, not
+even perception of external objects.  Attention is as much an act of
+will as of thought.  Man does not first evolve ideas and then summon
+will to actuate them.  In the very formation of ideas will is present
+and active.  Accordingly from the duality of Christ's cognitive nature
+the psychologist would infer that He had two wills.  There is in Christ
+the divine will that controlled the forces of nature and could suspend
+their normal workings, the will that wrought miracle, the eternal will,
+infinite in scope and power, that was objectified in His age-long
+universal purpose, in a word, the will that undertook the superhuman
+task of cosmic reconstruction and achieved it.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+It is not easy for us to conceive the co-existence of two wills in one
+person.  The difficulty is part of the discipline of faith.  Christ's
+human will is no less a fact than His divine will.  The former played
+as large a part in His earthly experience as the latter.  It was
+present in all its normal phases, ranging from motor will to psychic
+resolve.  The lower forms of volition, motor impulse, desire and wish,
+the higher forms, deliberation, choice, purpose and resolve.  He shared
+them all with humanity.  There is in Him a human will, limited in
+scope, varying in intensity, developing with the growth of His human
+experience, a will like ours in everything, except that it was free
+from moral imperfection.  It was a finite will, inasmuch as the
+conditioning cognition was finite, perfect of its kind, adequate to its
+task, never faltering, yet of finite strength.  The two wills have each
+their own sphere.  They operate in perfect harmony.  Only at crises,
+such as the Agony, is there any appearance of discord.  The opposition
+there is only apparent.  The human will reaches its limit, and the
+superhuman will interposes to perform the superhuman task.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The reality of the two wills, established for the orthodox both <I>a
+priori</I> and by an appeal to fact, is denied by the monophysite.  He
+regards will as the fundamental psychic state and makes it an attribute
+of personality.  Two wills, he says, would necessitate two persons.  He
+does not see that personality lies deeper than will, and that will and
+cognition are co-ordinate attributes of nature.  If Christ had but one
+nature, it follows that He had but one will and operation.  The
+monophysite thinks of two wills as necessarily antagonistic, as are
+conflicting motives in man; so he sees no ethical value in dithelite
+doctrine.  As a matter of fact the moral influence of Christianity
+would be much weakened by an abandonment of the doctrine of two wills.
+The belief in Christ's human will prevents men from despairing of their
+will.  Human will cannot be wholly warped, or wholly misdirected, or
+utterly powerless, since Christ in His life has shown that it can work
+along the same lines as the divine will, that the two can co-operate,
+and that where the lower reaches its limit, the higher can step in and
+perfect the work.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+From the historian's point of view the monothelite controversy is quite
+distinct from the monophysite.  So we need only take a glance at it
+here.  It originated in an attempt to win back the monophysites to the
+orthodox communion by a doctrinal compromise.  The emperor Heraclius
+endeavoured to unite catholic and monophysite on the basis of the
+formula, "two natures with one will and operation."  That formula will
+not bear analysis, and the emperor's attempt to use it as an eirenicon
+was a complete failure.  Imperial pressure induced a few monophysites
+to modify their doctrine so far as to admit "one theandric operation;"
+but the concession of "one will" from the orthodox side failed to win
+from the monophysites the expected concession of "two natures."  The
+monophysites were quite consistent here.  To deny will of nature is an
+elementary mistake in psychology.  Only a tyro in introspection will
+ascribe will directly to personality.  A one-willed two-natured
+personality is little short of a psychological monstrosity.  An attempt
+to rally Christendom round such a figure was bound to fail.  The only
+lasting result of the emperor's activity was the formation of a new
+sect, the Maronites.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE DUALITY OF CHRIST'S EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+We come now to the third element in the human spirit.  It is only in
+modern psychology that feeling has secured recognition as a distinct
+constituent of man's nature; so it is not surprising that the question
+as to its position in the incarnate Christ was not raised in former
+days.  Now, however, the psychology of feeling has come into its own,
+and it has become important to consider whether in this particular,
+too, Christ shared our human experience.  Here, again, the argument for
+maintaining the duality of Christ's emotional experience is twofold.
+It follows, on the one hand, from the duality of the other parts of His
+nature; and, on the other hand, it is proved by the facts of His life
+as recorded in the gospels.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Human nature involves feeling, and two natures involve two universes of
+feeling.  Divine personality cannot be conceived as devoid of feeling.
+With men feeling lies in the depths of being; it is the dynamic of
+life.  Feeling is the inner reflex of acts of thought and will.  It
+invariably accompanies cognition and volition.  If thought and will be
+attributed to the supreme being, the attribute of feeling cannot be
+left out.  When the God in Christ acted, divine feeling accompanied the
+act.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+This surmise is proved correct on reference to the records of His life.
+We find there two distinct emotional zones.  Christ has all the
+blameless feelings natural to man.  There are in Him the feelings
+accompanying sensation; physical pleasure and pain, hunger, thirst,
+weariness, and, in addition, the higher grades of feeling, aesthetic,
+sympathetic, and ethical.  He experienced wonder, surprise, righteous
+anger, the sublime, joy and love.  A life rich in emotion was the life
+of the Man Christ Jesus.  When, however, we look more closely into His
+experience, we catch glimpses of feeling such as no man could know.  We
+see there transcendent passion, great sorrow, great joy, so great that
+they would break a human heart.  We may instance the deep emotion
+accompanying His resolve to go to meet His fate at Jerusalem, the
+rejoicing in spirit at the success of the apostles' mission, His Agony
+and His universal love.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The monophysites could not recognise this duality in Christ's emotional
+nature.  Hunger and thirst, and even the higher human feelings they
+considered derogatory to the Son of God.  Even when they admitted that
+He suffered, they threw a veil of mystery over His sufferings.  They
+idealised the Passion.  They made it seem as if His flesh was
+privileged, as if His omnipotence excused Him from the emotional
+experiences of humanity.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+We have examined the doctrine of one nature, and exposed its chief
+consequences.  We have considered its effects in respect of the deity
+of Christ and in respect of His manhood.  We have applied the doctrine
+to the human nature as a whole, and to the several parts that compose
+it.  The result of the examination may be summarised in brief.
+Monophysitism destroys what is divine in the deity and what is human in
+the humanity.  It offers to Christians a Christ who is not sufficiently
+above man to be able to help them by His power, nor sufficiently man to
+be able to help them by His sympathy.  The monophysite Christ is
+neither very God nor very man, but a composition in which all traces of
+the original entities are lost to view.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<A NAME="chap03fn1"></A>
+<A NAME="chap03fn2"></A>
+<A NAME="chap03fn3"></A>
+<A NAME="chap03fn4"></A>
+
+<P CLASS="footnote">
+[<A HREF="#chap03fn1text">1</A>] "The Chronicle of Zachariah of Mitylene," translated by Hamilton
+and Brooks, chap. iii. p. 46.
+</P>
+
+<P CLASS="footnote">
+[<A HREF="#chap03fn2text">2</A>] This addition to the Trisagion was officially condemned at the
+close of the 7th century owing to its monophysite associations.
+</P>
+
+<P CLASS="footnote">
+[<A HREF="#chap03fn3text">3</A>] "Chronicle of Zachariah of Mitylene," translated by Hamilton and
+Brooks, ii. 2, p. 21.
+</P>
+
+<P CLASS="footnote">
+[<A HREF="#chap03fn4text">4</A>] The question of Justinian's orthodoxy has been debated by Bury and
+Hutton.  See <I>Guardian</I>, March 4th and April 15th, 1896.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR><BR>
+
+<A NAME="chap04"></A>
+
+<H3 ALIGN="center">
+CHAPTER IV
+</H3>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE ETHOS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Monophysitism originated in a monastery.  Eutyches, "the father of the
+monophysites," was a monk.  The monastic temperament is peculiarly
+susceptible to this heresy, and the monastic element has always been
+dominant in the monophysite churches.  The cloister is the natural
+habitat of the doctrine of the one nature.  Monasticism is applied
+monism.  If the world's existence be a sham, if its value compared with
+God be negligible, it becomes a religious duty to avoid all influences
+that heighten the illusion of the world's real existence and intrinsic
+value.  The monist, like the monk, must renounce all secular interests
+and "go out of the world."  The path of renunciation had an additional
+claim on the Christological monist.  In his universal ideal, as
+manifested in time, the human elements were sublimated into the divine.
+Consequently his ideal of conduct imposed a negative attitude towards
+the world and a merging of his ego in the universal spirit.  These are
+the ruling elements in the spirit of the cloister, and these are the
+characteristics of the monophysite ethos.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Those men, to whom God is the sum of all reality and the world merely a
+cosmic shadow, regard worship as the sole worthy activity of the human
+spirit.  In worship union with God is sought, a union so close that the
+personality of the worshipper is absorbed into the being of the
+worshipped.  His experience of God is so intimate that his experience
+of the world is reduced to insignificance.  As an overpowering human
+love welds two beings into one, and identifies their thoughts, wills,
+springs of action and even feelings, so the <I>amor dei</I> identifies man
+with God and makes possible a deification of humanity.  Deeply
+religious natures in all ages have heard this mystic call.  To lose
+their ego in the divine spirit is the height of their religious
+ambition.  The conception is lofty, but it is not the Christian ideal
+of life and duty.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Mysticism and monophysitism are twin systems.  Both are religious
+phases of pantheism.  As, to the intellect, acosmism is the corollary
+of pantheism, so, to the heart, asceticism follows from mysticism.
+Whether conceived in terms of existence or of value, the world for the
+mystic is an obstacle to the <I>unio mystica</I>.  It snares the mind
+through the senses and creates a fictitious -appearance of solid
+reality in sensuous objects.  It makes pretensions to goodness and
+attaches to itself a spurious value.  The only remedy is self-denial,
+denial of existence to the world, denial of credence to the senses,
+denial of gratification to the passions, desires, and inclinations.
+The monophysites were mystics.  They were the rigorists of the eastern
+church.  They formed the "no compromise" party.  They stood for a
+thorough-going renunciation of the world and the flesh.  Though they
+did not officially lay down the inherent evil of matter, Manicheanism
+is latent in their system.  They did not explicitly identify matter
+with the spirit of evil, but they had the spiritual man's suspicion of
+matter and his contempt for the body of the flesh.  Abstinence,
+mortification of the flesh, and all ascetic practices flourished in
+their communion.  Art and culture were suspect; they had no eye for
+natural beauty.  Some of their hymn-writers possessed considerable
+poetic taste; but poetry was discouraged by their leaders.  Several of
+the extant letters of Severus of Antioch show that that patriarch did
+his best to banish that art from his church.  His attitude may be
+gathered from the following quotation.[<A NAME="chap04fn1text"></A><A HREF="#chap04fn1">1</A>]  "As to Martyrius, the poet,
+... I wish you to know that he is a trouble to me and a nuisance.
+Indeed in the case of the others also who follow the same profession,
+and were enrolled in the holy clergy of the Church that is with us, I
+have debarred them from practising such poetry; and I am taking much
+trouble to sever this theatrical pursuit from ecclesiastical gravity
+and modesty, 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
+fornication, and carrying them to bestial passions."  The result of
+this asceticism was a jaundiced and inhuman outlook on life.  There was
+much piety among the monophysites, but it was confined to a narrow
+channel.  Their zeal for purity of doctrine amounted to fanaticism;
+their hatred of the Nestorian and of the Melchite at times reached a
+white heat.  Toleration was almost unknown in their communion.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The claims of humanity appeal less to a monophysite than to other
+Christians.  He places all life's values in the other world.  He has no
+motive for trying to ameliorate the lot of his fellow-men.  Social
+service has to him little or no divine sanction or religious value.  We
+are speaking only of general tendencies.  No follower of Christ,
+however perverted his views, could be totally indifferent to the
+welfare of other men; but it came natural to the monophysite to think
+that it does not matter much how a man lives in this world of shadows,
+provided he holds communion with the world of unseen realities.  The
+same motive accounts for the rapid decline of missionary activity in
+their communion.  The Nestorians were far more active propagandists.
+Worship is a very high type of service; but worship becomes selfish and
+sickens into sentiment, if it neglects the inspiring tonic of contact
+with human need.  The monophysite Christology encouraged that form of
+self-sacrifice, whose goal is Nirvana, which lapses lazily into the
+cosmic soul and loses itself there in contemplation and ecstasy.  It
+supplies no motive for that finer piety which manifests itself in
+ethical endeavour and practical philanthropy.  His Christ had not
+partaken of the cup of suffering.  His Christ's advance to human
+perfection was illusory.  So the monophysite could not look for the
+sympathy of Christ in his own struggles, nor could he appeal to
+Christ's example in respect of works of human charity.  Monophysitism
+considers only the religious nature of man, and takes no account of his
+other needs.  We must therefore characterise the system as unsocial,
+unlovely, unsympathetic.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The uncompromising attitude of the individual monophysites was
+reflected in their ecclesiastical polity.  We cannot but admire their
+sturdy independence.  The monophysite church stood for freedom from
+state control.  Her principles were the traditional principles of the
+Alexandrian see.  Alexandria would not truckle to Constantinople, nor
+let religion subserve imperial policy.  She would allow the catholic
+party to be Melchites (King's men) and to reap all the temporal
+advantages accruing to the established church.  In this matter the
+monophysites took a narrow view; but their narrowness evinces their
+piety.  They felt the evils attendant on Constantine's grand
+settlement, and they made their ill-judged protest.  They made it for
+no unworthy motive.  There are always such thinkers in the church.  A
+spiritual enthusiast despises the outward dignity that the church gains
+from an alliance with the State, and is often blind to the spiritual
+benefits conferred on the nation by that alliance, while he
+concentrates his gaze on incidental evils.  To connect with Christology
+such an attitude towards the principle of Establishment may seem forced
+at first sight.  The connection, however, exists.  Independence of the
+temporal power is symptomatic with that unworldliness which, as we have
+shown above, characterises monophysitism.  Its adherents paid no
+respect to the human as such.  They attached no value to merely human
+institutions, and made no attempt to see or foster the divine that is
+in them.  The argument that because the State is a human institution it
+should have no voice in ecclesiastical policy is typically monophysite;
+it is the argument of one who could draw no inspiration from the human
+life of the Son of God.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Mysticism and rationalism have much in common.  They both are elements
+in the mental composition of almost every serious thinker.  The
+sterility of logic often drives him to seek a higher and surer
+instrument of knowledge.  So there is no inconsistency in further
+characterising the monophysites as rationalists.  The intellectuals of
+the eastern church were found mostly in their communion.  Theirs was
+the formal logic point of view.  Christ, they urged, was one and not
+two; therefore His nature was one and not two.  They could not see that
+He was both.  In Bergsonian language, they used exclusively mechanical
+categories.  Intelligence, an instrument formed by contact with matter,
+destined for action upon matter, they used on a supra-material subject.
+Their thinkers were highly trained logicians; they revelled in abstract
+argument; theirs was a cold intellectual metaphysic, unwarmed by flesh
+and blood empiricism.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Their narrow outlook on life, their religious zeal and their
+rationalist philosophy combined to produce in them sectarianism of an
+extreme type.  Party spirit ran high among them.  They fought the
+catholics; they fought the Nestorians; they fought one another.  The
+list of schisms that occurred in their communion is of amazing length.
+The letters of Severus of Antioch make sad reading.  They show us that
+the patriarch had constantly to interfere in cases of disputed
+succession to bishoprics.  At almost every vacancy in the provincial
+dioceses there were parties formed each with their own nominee, ready
+to schismatise if they could not secure recognition and consecration
+for him.  It is evident that monophysitism does not foster the
+generous, tolerant, humane virtues of Christianity.  It is the creed of
+monks, mystics, and intellectualists.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<A NAME="chap04fn1"></A>
+
+<P CLASS="footnote">
+[<A HREF="#chap04fn1text">1</A>] E. W. Brooks, "Select Letters of Severus of Antioch," vol. ii. pp.
+88, 89.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR><BR>
+
+<A NAME="chap05"></A>
+
+<H3 ALIGN="center">
+CHAPTER V
+</H3>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM AND MODERN PSYCHOLOGY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Christology divorced from empirical psychology is a barren science.
+Abstract discussions about person, nature and union of natures soon
+degenerate into logomachies.  If personality is a psychic entity, and
+nature another distinct psychic entity, then the question at issue
+between diphysite and monophysite is worth debating.  If they are
+concepts merely, the debate is hollow and of purely academic interest.
+A study of psychology clothes the dry bones with flesh.  It puts life
+and meaning into these abstractions.  It shows that they represent
+entities, that something corresponding to the terms "person" and
+"nature" is actually part of the being of every man, and that therefore
+their existence in Christ is a proper and practical subject for
+investigation.  In so doing psychology provides the <I>rationale</I> of the
+Christological controversies.  It justifies the church in her
+determined adherence to the precise expression of the truth.  No
+Christian with powers of introspection, who can distinguish in his own
+being personality and nature, can be indifferent to the Christological
+problem.  The problem is one of fact, not theory.  The terms and the
+formula are only of importance as expressing or failing to express the
+true facts of Christ's being.  In a word, the psychology of the central
+figure of human history is the matter at issue.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Reference to psychological fact is what one misses in the records of
+the old controversies.  The disputes read as if they were about
+shadows.  No doubt that was often the case.  Catholics and
+non-Catholics were often agreed as to the substance of belief, while
+owing to their devotion to words and formulae the agreement went
+unrecognised.  Had the disputants made clear to themselves and to each
+other what they meant by their abstract terms, had they translated them
+into their concrete psychological equivalents, heresy and schism would
+have been less frequent.  It was, however, almost impossible for them
+to do so, because in their day theology was far more highly developed
+than psychology.  Systematic observation of the workings of spirit was
+almost unknown.  There existed no science of psychology as we know it.
+No clear notions attached to the terms "person" and "nature."  They
+represented abstractions necessary to discursive reason rather than
+concrete psychic facts.  All parties shared this defect.  Among
+catholics and Nestorians as well as among monophysites knowledge of the
+constituents of human nature was of the most rudimentary character.
+The catholic party, however, by keeping close to the facts recorded in
+the gospels, achieved a Christological formula that is psychologically
+intelligible; while the heretical parties were led by their
+preconceived opinions to fashion a Christ, whose features are
+unrecognisable as God or man, a psychological monstrosity.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+BERGSON'S THEORIES THROW LIGHT ON CHRISTOLOGY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Without claiming finality for the findings of modern psychology, we can
+consider some results of the science as established.  They are
+sufficiently well established, at any rate, to provide a starting-point
+for our investigation.  In particular the brilliant observations and
+theories of M. Bergson throw, so it seems to the writer, a flood of
+light on Christology.  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 fallacy.  These key
+doctrines are, first, the interpenetration of psychic states, and,
+second, the distinction between deep-seated and superficial
+consciousness.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+BERGSON'S THEORY OF THE INTERPENETRATION OF PSYCHIC STATES
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+It is, says Bergson, characteristic of psychic states that they do not,
+like material things remain external to one another.  They
+inter-penetrate.  Cut up by human intelligence into discrete elements,
+in their own nature they remain a continuum.  States of mind appear
+successive and external to one another, because age-long association
+with matter has accustomed men to material modes of thought.  Man's
+intelligence is a by-product of activity.  For purposes of action it is
+the externality of things that matters.  The inner connection is
+relatively unimportant.  Men act with precision on matter, because
+perception cuts up the continuum of matter into bodies, defined bodies
+no two of which can occupy the same space.  Intelligence originating
+thus by contact with matter naturally prefers mechanical categories.
+These categories applicable to matter when applied to higher forms of
+existence mislead.  We naturally conceive psychic states as external to
+one another, and their interpenetration seems an abnormality.  At this
+stage of thought experience is pictured as a line of indefinite length,
+infinitely divisible, whose divisions correspond to the moments of
+consciousness.  This spatial picture of mind is misleading in many
+ways, not the least in that it can offer no reasonable theory of the
+subconscious.  Thinkers who materialise mental experience have no room
+in their theory for the sub-conscious.  It is for them bare
+non-consciousness, a psychic vacuum.  When, however, we start from this
+unique characteristic, that mind possesses, of remaining one and
+indivisible throughout the greatest appearance of diversity, the
+sub-conscious falls naturally into the scheme.  No part of our
+experience perishes.  It is essentially self-perpetuating memory.  The
+needs of action relegate the greater portion of it to the
+sub-conscious, but it is there, always linked to our conscious
+experience, and only awaiting the occasion to emerge into the full
+light of consciousness.  Past penetrates into the present.  One portion
+of our present penetrates into the other portions.  Conscious and
+unconscious, past and present, combine to form one wonderful whole.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM IGNORES THE DUALITY IN CHRIST'S EXPERIENCE
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Such in outline is Bergson's theory of the interpenetration of psychic
+states.  If this psychology be adopted, the abstract character of the
+catholic doctrine of Christ's being in large measure disappears.  It
+becomes easy to conceive the interpenetration of two natures in one
+Christ.  Further, the Bergsonian psychology furnishes a standpoint from
+which criticism of monophysitism is easy.  Psychology at the
+monophysite stage of thought conceives the moments of Christ's
+consciousness in their mutual externality; they follow each other as do
+the ticks of a clock.  They are discrete elements strung along on a
+hypothetical ego.  Christ's experience is conceived as unilinear.  All
+that He did, suffered and thought is regarded as having taken place on
+one and the same plane of experience.  This psychology has no room for
+another plane of experience.  It has no room for a positive
+sub-consciousness.  Consequently that one plane must be the one divine
+nature, which, as the monophysites taught, absorbed the human.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The one-nature theory is not true to the facts.  It overlooks the
+complexity of Christ's experience.  His experiences lie on two
+different planes.  He has different universes of thought, different
+actuating wills and sets of feelings.  Christ is not in one nature.
+The phases of His consciousness are twofold.  His experiences fall
+naturally into two groups.  While one group is in consciousness, the
+other is below the level of consciousness.  Now the human experiences,
+now the divine, are uppermost.  Both are always present.  Life under
+such conditions is inconceivable, unless full recognition be accorded
+to the fact that conscious states interpermeate.  If each state fall
+outside the other, and consciousness be a chain of successive ideas or
+emotions, a twofold nature within the one experience is meaningless.
+The view of conscious states as discrete leads inevitably to
+determinism.  The place of one state in the chain is conditioned by its
+predecessor.  There is no room for the spontaneity and the creative
+power which characterise conscious life.  Associationism cannot
+countenance the unforeseen and incalculable.  So it is out of sympathy
+with Christian psychology.  A function of the divine in Christ is to
+introduce the element of the unforeseen and incalculable into His
+normal and human experience.  The Bergsonian psychology thus supplies
+an intellectual basis for belief in the possibility of two natures in
+Christ.  When ideas are regarded as psychic entities whose essential
+property is mutual penetration, the ground is prepared for the catholic
+formula.  Where this truth is not recognised, there arises inevitably
+the tendency to assert that Christ had and must have had but one
+uniform level of experience, and that assertion is the essence of
+monophysitism.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+BERGSON'S THEORY OF DEEP-SEATED AND SUPERFICIAL STATES
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Bergson's psychology throws further light on a central doctrine of
+catholic Christology.  It not only makes conceivable, as we have shown
+above, the co-existence of the two natures, but it lends support to the
+belief in the independent reality of His personality.  Person and
+nature of Christology find their modern equivalents in the Bergsonian
+"deep-seated" and "superficial" states of consciousness.  Bergson draws
+a sharp line of distinction between these two.  The deep-seated states
+constitute the kernel of being.  They are the man's existence turned
+inwards.  They are independent, free, creative.  They are a unifying
+force.  Always present, they only rarely make their presence felt.
+Only at moments of deep experience do they interfere with the surface
+self.  The superficial states form the outward-regarding existence of
+man.  They represent consciousness relaxed into moments of clock-time,
+moments more or less external to one another.  They are not truly free.
+They are conditioned by the material environment.  Whatever be thought
+of the metaphysic of this system, recognition cannot be refused to that
+part of it which rests on the solid foundation of psychological fact.
+Self-analysis discloses a two-fold experience in man.  The stream of
+his life contains both current and undercurrent.  The current is
+nature, the under-current personality.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM ANNULS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN <BR>
+DIVINE PERSON AND DIVINE NATURE
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+This distinction is of paramount importance in Christology.  Diphysites
+hold fast to the distinction.  They maintain a human nature in Christ,
+but they do not humanise His person.  The person cannot be humanised.
+It remained divine after the incarnation, as it was before.  Though He
+became man, the depth of His being was unchanged.  The rain from heaven
+and the waters from the earthly spring mingle in one stream, but
+beneath the surface the deep undercurrent of being flows on unchanged.
+The monophysite in effect abandons this distinction.  This is where his
+psychology is most seriously at fault.  He confuses person and nature.
+Deep-seated and superficial states of soul are all one to him.  He does
+not see the duality in the being of his fellow-men; so he cannot see it
+in the ideal man.  This is a consequence of monophysitism which has not
+attracted the attention of theologians, and which the monophysite
+himself did not intend.  The doctrine that rules out the human nature
+of Christ rules out the divine nature also, by confusing it with the
+personality.  The monophysite affirms the divine nature while denying
+the human.  Such affirmation is purely verbal.  It is completely void
+of significance.  The contrast between the divine and human natures is
+needed to throw personality into relief.  Take away the human nature,
+and that contrast disappears, and with it goes the distinction between
+divine person and divine nature.  Then, instead of a transcendent
+personality in whose portrait divine and human features are distinctly
+limned, we have a blur.  Where God planned a unique though intelligible
+psychic harmony, we find a psychic medley.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+CONSCIOUSNESS OF PERSONALITY PRODUCED <BR>
+BY A VIOLENT CHANGE OF OCCUPATION
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+This assertion is justified by an appeal to human experience.  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 others.  For instance, a sudden and violent change of
+occupation establishes personality as a distinct entity.  The civilian
+turns soldier.  Almost immediately all parts of his nature are
+affected.  He feels the development, as it were, of a second nature
+within him.  His faculties are transformed.  He enters a new universe
+of thought.  His range of knowledge narrows in one direction, widens in
+another.  His volitional nature is altered.  His will narrows in scope,
+but increases in intensity.  Nor does his emotional nature escape the
+change.  Aesthetic values are reversed.  He no longer feels pleasure
+and pain at the old objects.  Physical desires play a much larger part
+in his life, and he loses taste for intellectual pleasures.  The
+soldier returns to civilian life and, as it were, with his civilian
+attire he resumes his former nature, and all his old thoughts and
+feelings and impulses come flooding back.  Such an experience is of
+considerable psychological interest.  It exemplifies the
+interpenetration of different states of thought and activity.  The
+contrasts bring home to a man the fact that his spirit is a synthesis
+of heterogeneous elements.  They force him back on himself.  They rouse
+in him the dormant sense of personal being.  It is the apprehension of
+strong contrast in his experience of himself, the apprehension of the
+plurality of his being, that accentuates the deep-lying unity.  The
+more violent the change in the walks of life, the clearer becomes the
+concept of the continuity.  Civilian or soldier, the man, the person is
+the same.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Personality is thrown into relief not only by change of occupation, but
+also by moral contrasts.  Conflicting passions, opposing motives and
+internal debate serve to make a man realise himself.  Strong
+personalities are often those in whom the conflict between good and
+evil is most acute.  It is the very opposition of natures which brings
+out the personal element into the full light of conscious recognition.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+We must now examine human personality in greater detail; we must
+indicate its functions and show how it differs from human nature.  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 monophysite.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+KANT AND THE DUAL CHARACTER OF THE EGO
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Kant distinguished the noumenal from the phenomenal ego.  The former he
+regarded as an idea, the latter as a reality in time.  The distinction
+corresponds roughly to that between person and nature.  The phenomenal
+ego is the nature of man.  It bears the brunt of the struggle of life.
+The noumenal ego is the transcendent personality of the individual&mdash;an
+idea which pure reason necessarily forms and which practical reason
+establishes.  Though the Kantian philosophy no longer carries
+conviction, it is interesting to see that Kant felt and admitted a
+double current in man's being.  He recognised that the superficial self
+is not the true being of the man.  It is not necessary, however, to go
+as far as Kant went.  We need not with him relegate the core of
+personal being to the realm of idea.  Granted that personality is not
+part of our normal experience as nature is, there are times when the
+depths of being are stirred.  Moments of crisis drive a man deeper than
+will and thought and even feeling, and make him conscious of himself as
+a psychic unity, permanent and of infinite value.  Personality normally
+remains in the recesses of the subconscious.  It is the hidden basis of
+life.  It is active, though its activities are for the most part
+underground.  It does not, however, lie altogether outside the ken of
+consciousness.  It may be experienced; it is experienced when great
+emotion rends the surface fabric of the man and discloses the true self.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+HUMAN PERSONALITY AND HUMAN NATURE
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+What is human personality?  It is a psychic entity whose most important
+function is to unify the parts of a man's nature.  It is the principle
+of unity and the instrument of unity.  A man's thought, will and
+feeling are distinct and real entities.  His intelligence takes various
+forms from perception to abstract thought; it may be directed to
+outward things, to thoughts of things, or to pure idea.  He wills many
+things, and wills them in different modes and with varying degrees of
+intensity.  A wide range of feeling is found in him, from physical to
+mental, from organic to ideal feeling.  His nature is tripartite.  Each
+part admits of variation in itself and in its interaction with the
+other parts.  Each of the three expresses the man at the moment.  No
+one of the three gives the whole account of his being.  Nor do the
+three taken together.  Though his nature is tripartite the man himself
+cannot be resolved into component parts.  He has his faculties and
+states, but he is more than their sum.  He may lose himself in thought
+or activity, or abandon himself to feeling, but when he is fulfilling
+his true function, when he is most himself, all parts of his nature are
+concentrated to a point.  Partial activity of thought, will, or feeling
+is then replaced by activity of the personality.  Personality is the
+synthetic unity of all parts of a man's nature.  It has the wonderful
+power of compressing to a point a medley of psychic elements.  Moods
+and memories, perceptions and ideas, wishes and purposes, it tensions
+them all up, merges them and expresses them in characteristic acts
+representative of the man.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Personality differs from nature also in respect of relation to
+environment.  It is relatively independent of circumstances.  Habit and
+education mould the nature, but if they touch the person they do so
+only indirectly.  The nature must be deeply affected before a change in
+the person is registered.  Personality is not synonomous with inherited
+disposition; but it bears a similar relation to nature as inherited
+disposition does to acquired habit.  It is to nature what character is
+to action.  It is to nature what in Weismann's theory the germ plasm is
+to the somatic cell.  Changes in it are mediated by nature and are
+almost imperceptible in a life time.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Again, nature is the superficies of the soul.  It is the part that
+comes in contact with the world of things and people.  A man's nature
+is what he is for other people; what he is in and for himself alone is
+personality.  There is a substance or self-existence of the psychic
+states.  Thought, will and feeling have all and each an external
+reference.  The internal reference of the whole is the core of being.
+Our perception of personality in other people is a subtle thing.  In
+the ordinary give and take of life we are not aware of it.  It is when
+we realise the subject as a self-existent unity that we recognise
+personality.  We judge a man's nature by his thought or will or
+feelings as conveyed through the ordinary channels of communication.
+Personality is felt.  It is a magnetism that influences, but remains
+inarticulate.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Person and nature differ also in respect of relation to the body.  The
+co-existence of heterogeneous natures in the same body is a fact of
+experience.  Different universes of thought, different levels of will
+and feeling can be lodged in one organism.  The higher the development
+of the individual, the more clearly marked is the duality or plurality
+of nature.  It is otherwise with personality.  In normal cases no two
+personalities can tenant the one body.  The unity of the organism is
+the outward expression and guarantee of the unity of the person.  There
+are of course pathological cases which form exceptions to this rule.
+Such cases, however, only serve to emphasise the distinction between
+person and nature.  In cases of dual personality the occupancy of the
+one body is not simultaneous.  Jekyll alternates with Hyde.  Dual
+personality is a totally different phenomenon from duality of nature.
+Duality of nature is relatively superficial.  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 entity.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Personality then is the synthetic principle in man's being.  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
+experience.  The student of Christology welcomes this account of
+personality, but he requires more.  He seeks a parallel for the union
+of two whole and perfect natures.  He demands some reason for holding
+the central dogma of the incarnation to be intelligible and probable.
+The next step in the argument accordingly is to ask, "Why limit the
+synthetic power of personality?"  If personality can synthesise parts
+of a nature, why should it not also synthesise natures?  If human
+personality can unify such heterogeneous psychic elements as thought,
+will and feeling, and present them as a harmonious whole, is it not
+credible that divine personality should carry the synthesis a step
+further and harmonise in one being the thoughts, wills and feelings of
+God and man?  The hypostatic union of natures in Christ is a phenomenon
+not psychologically improbable, and one which can be paralleled from
+human experience.  There is in man what is tantamount to a conjunction
+of the two natures.  Man is rather diphysite than monophysite.  We
+pointed out above the extensive modifications that can be produced in a
+man's nature by environment.  There is in him a deeper duality which we
+can only characterise as an association of divine and human.  Man is an
+inhabitant of the earth, of earthly descent and finite destiny; yet the
+divine is not totally foreign to him.  He has hopes of heaven, moments
+of supraconsciousness, at times vision, resolve and emotion that are
+supra-normal.  The divine is an element in him.  It is more than an
+aspect of his nature.  Its influence operates often in opposition to
+the human element.  He is, as Bergson puts it, at the meeting-point of
+the upward and the downward currents.  He can know God, can do the will
+of God, can be filled with the love of God.  Here are the three factors
+of his nature, raised to a higher power.  His experience may lie and
+often does lie on two planes.  He is "double lived in regions new."
+</P>
+
+<P>
+In applying this human analogy to the ideal man caution is necessary.
+The duality of natures is a fact in both cases, but there is one
+essential difference.  The personal substratum of the natures in one
+case is human, in the other case divine.  In man the divine element is
+part of his nature, but not part of his person.  The ego remains human
+through all spiritual development.  "The best of saints is a saint at
+the best."  The secondary element in him is a fact, but it is part of
+his nature, not of his person.  It is otherwise in the case of Christ.
+He came from the ideal world and returned there.  The background of his
+experience was and is divine.  The secondary element in Him was the
+human, the primary the divine.  He shared man's experience and shared
+it really, but it did not form part of the core of His being.  When He
+thought or willed or felt as a man, it was a <I>kénôsis</I>, a limiting of
+his natural mode of self-expression.  Divine and human are both present
+in the experience of Christ and of mankind, but with this
+difference&mdash;man rises to the divine; Christ condescended to the human.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+VALUE OF BERGSON'S PSYCHOLOGY TO ORTHODOX CHRISTOLOGY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Person and nature are then real and distinct psychic entities.  They
+are real alike in God and man.  The distinction between them is not
+artificial or verbal; it is perhaps elusive, but it is genuine and
+capable of proof from experience.  The synthetic faculty of personality
+manifests itself in uniting without confusing, first, parts of the
+nature, second, entire natures.  These theses supply what is requisite
+for an intelligent appreciation of Christology.  Without them
+Christology is a battle of shadows; with them it becomes a practical
+problem of first importance for religious minds.  The psychology which
+justifies orthodox Christology is that which proclaims the
+interpenetration of psychic states, and which distinguishes between the
+surface states of a relaxed consciousness, and the deep-seated states
+which are ever present, but of which we are conscious only at moments
+of tension.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+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 man.  Human parallels make intelligible
+the co-existence of the two natures in the one person and the one body.
+What is normal in man is surely possible in the ideal man.  Heretical
+Christologies err in their psychology.  In Nestorian Christology Christ
+is presented as a dual personality, an abnormal association in one body
+of two distinct self-existent beings.  Thus a pathological case would
+be elevated to the rank of mankind's ideal.  The monophysite psychology
+plunges men into the opposite error.  An undiscriminating craving for
+unity among the phenomena of psychic life prevents any recognition of
+the dual character of experience.  Monophysitism is blind to the
+difference between person and nature because it places all psychic
+experiences on the one level.  Determined to find unity in its ideal,
+it seeks an inappropriate unity, the mathematical unity, the unity that
+excludes plurality.  To the monophysite the major part of the gospels
+is a sealed book, because the major part of the facts there recorded
+about Christ could not possibly have happened to a one-natured Christ.
+His human knowledge, normal, limited, progressive, His human will,
+natural, adequate to the human, inadequate to the superhuman task, his
+human feelings, his body consubstantial with ours are to the
+monophysite merely shadows or symbols or aspects of something greater.
+They are dwarfed into nothingness.  They are lost in the divine
+omniscience, omnipotence and transcendent love.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR><BR>
+
+<A NAME="chap06"></A>
+
+<H3 ALIGN="center">
+CHAPTER VI
+</H3>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM IN THE PRESENT DAY
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+"To believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ" is an
+ideal that the thoughtful Christian strives to attain.  He expects to
+find the solution of high moral and speculative problems in that union
+of divine and human.  The right faith is not easily reached.  It is an
+elusive prize.  There are conditions moral and intellectual attaching
+to its possession.  The moral conditions may take a lifetime to fulfil.
+Even on its intellectual side faith is a long process.  No sudden
+mental grasp of the whole truth can be attained.  It dawns on the mind
+gradually.  The discipline of faith in the incarnation consists in a
+gradual and laborious advance from stage to stage.  The various stages
+are half-truths or inadequate conceptions of Christ.  They are
+objectified in the Christological heresies.  These heresies arrange
+themselves in a sequence so strict and so logical that one could almost
+say that they are deducible <I>a priori</I> from the concept "divine-human."
+Certainly the subjective fancies of the heresiarchs do not provide the
+whole account.  There is something of the universal in these heresies.
+They are in the main current of religious thought.  As the chief
+historic systems of philosophy repeat themselves in each generation and
+in the intellectual development of individual thinkers, so do the
+Christological heresies recur.  There is considerable truth in Hegel's
+contentions that the development of a man's mind is one with that of
+the general consciousness, that the individual reason is a miniature of
+the universal reason, that in fact the history of a philosopher's
+thinking is an abstract of the history of philosophy.  The same holds
+good in the field of religious thought.  Without much artificiality,
+without forcing the facts, a rational scheme of the Christological
+heresies might be drawn up.  They might be pictorially represented as
+the rungs of a ladder, which the truth-seeking mind scales rung by
+rung, pausing at the lower phases of Christological thought, and then
+resuming the ascent till the highest truth is attained.  The instrument
+of thought is much the same in all centuries; the objects of thought
+vary very little; so it is intelligible that the products of
+speculative and religious thought should remain the same to-day as in
+the fifth century.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE EXISTENCE OF MODERN MONOPHYSITISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Is there such a thing as modern monophysitism?  To this question the
+preceding paragraph supplies the answer, "There must be."  Heretical
+tendencies will be found in the Christian community in every
+generation, and the religious thought of individual Christians will
+pass through heretical phases.  Such heresy is rather an intellectual
+than a moral fault; but the possibility of being the heirs, without
+knowing it, 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 orthodoxy.  Not a few
+leaders of religious thought, in intention orthodox, in fact remain
+monophysites, through inability to analyse their beliefs or through a
+false sense of security, founded on the opinion that the age of heresy
+is past.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+It is commonly supposed that belief in the deity of Christ constitutes
+Christianity.  That supposition is wrong.  Arius was not the only
+heresiarch.  To transcend the Arian standpoint is only the first step
+in the long discipline of faith.  There are other heresies, other
+half-truths scarcely less pernicious than the Arian.  The recognition
+of Christ as God represents a great intellectual and moral advance, and
+is the first essential step in religion; but to rest content with the
+taking of that step is to remain on the lowest rung of the ladder of
+faith.  It is little use to form a lofty conception of Christ, if in
+doing so we insulate Him from the world of things and souls.  That is
+what monophysitism does, and because disguised monophysitism is
+prevalent in the church to-day, Christianity's grip is weak and the
+fire of devotion low.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+We may picture faith as a battlefield.  Doubt is the enemy entrenched
+in depth.  Arianism holds the first line of trenches.  Echeloned behind
+Arianism are the other heresies in a network of fortified redoubts,
+strong points and support trenches.  The church militant must make the
+furthest line her objective.  If her advance stays at an intermediate
+point, she is exposed to cross-fire from the support trenches of the
+subsidiary heresies.  The ground gained by the first assault proves
+untenable.  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 doctrine.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+A thorough and systematic advance of this sort was made by the orthodox
+Christologians of the fifth century.  The campaign was fought and won
+then.  It has, however, to be fought anew in each generation and in the
+experience of individual thinkers.  Monophysitism is commonly regarded
+as a vagary of oriental thought, killed once and for all by a church
+council in the fifth century.  That is a superficial view.
+Monophysitism is a hydra growth, and no Hercules can be found to
+exterminate it.  It reappears in each succeeding age, in West as well
+as East.  The structure of the human intellect is such that, whenever
+men begin to investigate the being of Christ, the tendency to regard
+Him as one-natured is present.  The church of the fifth century exposed
+that doctrine; it was beyond her power to kill it.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+REASONS FOR THE PREVALENCE OF MONOPHYSITISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Monophysitism is in our midst undetected to-day.  It is not hard to
+account for its prevalence.  The clergy are for the most part unable to
+expound Christology, and the laity are impatient of exposition.
+Anything savouring of precise theology is at a discount.  So pulpit and
+pew conspire to foster the growth of the tares.  The "Athanasian" creed
+is in disrepute, and its statement of dogmatic Christology is involved
+in the discredit attaching to the damnatory clauses.  The clergy are
+perhaps rather glad to leave the subject alone.  They know it is a
+difficult subject, and they are afraid of burning their fingers.  The
+laity rarely hear any reference to the two natures of Christ.  If they
+do, they are not interested; they do not think that the question makes
+any difference to faith or practice.  The whole extent of the
+Christological knowledge possessed by the average churchman is
+comprised in the formula, "Christ is God and man."  He cannot apply the
+formula nor reconcile it with common sense.  He occasionally hears from
+the pulpit the phrase "God-man"; but it is a mere phrase to him; it is
+not translated for him into a language that he can understand.  So he
+registers the doctrine mentally as an impenetrable mystery and gives it
+no further attention, or perhaps turns away in disgust from the system
+whose central figure is so unintelligibly presented by its authorised
+exponents.  The bare statement that Christ is God and man, though true,
+is not adequate.  It carries no conviction to thinking minds to-day.
+The full definition of the council of Chalcedon should be published
+broadcast, and so studied by theologians in the light of modern
+psychology that they can present it as a reasonable dogma, intelligible
+to-day and touching modern life.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+In the absence of such teaching the spread of false, unbalanced or
+inadequate conceptions of what Christ was and of what He is is
+inevitable.  Our concern here is to exhibit those of a monophysite
+character.  Monophysite tendencies of the present day may be grouped
+according as they affect Christ's being or His work or Christian
+practice.  We propose to take them in that order.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MODERN PRESENTATIONS OF CHRIST ESOTERIC <BR>
+AND DEFICIENT IN PERSONAL APPEAL
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Monophysitism in respect of Christ's being shows itself to-day in
+negative rather than positive ways.  To its subtle influence is
+traceable the capital defect of modern presentations of Christ, namely,
+that they make no appeal to the outsider.  Christ is proclaimed as the
+solution of moral, social and industrial problems.  As a rule in such
+cases the name "Christ" is used as a synonym for Christian principles.
+Such appeals are addressed to the head; they do not touch the heart and
+fire the imagination; they do not kindle that personal devotion to the
+Man Christ Jesus which has always been the dynamic of the faith.  The
+historic Christ is not presented in a way that would appeal to the
+unconvinced.  Christian teaching is becoming more and more esoteric.
+In the language of Christology, a diphysite Christ is not preached.
+His human nature is kept in the background.  It is not portrayed in
+arresting colours.  If the apostles and apostolic men had preached the
+impersonal redeemer of modern religious thought, they would never have
+won the world for Christ.  Their imaginations and lives were fired by
+contact with a Man of flesh and blood.  So they presented a Christ
+whose true humanity appealed to His fellow-men.  They showed the gospel
+picture to an unbelieving world, and the world responded to its appeal.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+It is not easy to bridge the centuries and regain the apostles'
+standpoint, but until it is done the church's message will lack
+inspiration.  The phrase "the historic Christ" is commonly used, as if
+it covered the whole ground.  It is certainly serviceable as a protest
+against a bare logos theory of the incarnation, but in itself it is not
+adequate.  What requires emphasis is the humanity of the historic
+Christ.  Many Christian teachers purposely withhold this emphasis from
+fear of playing into the hands of Arians and Nestorians.  No doubt if
+pressed they would give intellectual assent to the dogma of the two
+natures, but they shrink from following it out to its consequences.
+There is a widespread feeling that it is irreverent to dwell on the
+fact that Christ was a real man.  A firm grasp of catholic Christology
+in its entirety is the cure for this squeamishness.  To obscure the
+fact of His Manhood is not the true reply to a denial of His Deity.  A
+true presentation of Christ must give full weight to the facts that He
+had a human body, human mind, human feelings and human will, that His
+body was in space normally subject to physical law, that His
+consciousness and subconsciousness conformed to psychic law.  Wherever
+a denial of these facts is found, there is monophysitism.  Wherever
+they are obscured or neglected, there are monophysite tendencies.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+INDIFFERENCE TO CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS&mdash;A CLASSICAL COMPARISON
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Failure to appreciate the real humanity of Christ's life results in
+comparative indifference to the tragedy of His death.  Monophysitism in
+undermining belief in the reality of Christ's manhood is weakening
+sympathy with His sufferings.  Calvary like Bethlehem has lost much of
+its appeal.  A classical comparison will illustrate this fact.  Plato's
+account of Socrates' last hour in the prison and of his drinking the
+hemlock is, I imagine, to many educated men far more moving than the
+story of the Passion and Death of Christ.  There is a curious
+similarity in the two tragedies that invites attention and comparison.
+Both sufferers were heroes and moral reformers, the victims of mistaken
+zeal on the part of religious authority.  Socrates died in a ripe age
+with his life work accomplished.  Jesus was cut off in His prime.
+Socrates' last hours were tranquil and his passing quick and easy.
+Jesus after shame and torture died a lingering death.  The dysthanasia
+of Jesus should, one would opine, make a stronger appeal to men's
+sympathies than does the euthanasia of Socrates.  Yet on the whole the
+reverse is the case.  The difference in the respective styles of the
+two narratives does not give the whole explanation.  It is true that
+the Phaedo is a work of fine art while the gospel story is a plain
+statement of fact.  The reason, however, for the difference in appeal
+goes deeper than literary style.  The reader of the Phaedo puts himself
+into the place of Socrates and suffers with him.  As we read the
+Passion of Christ there rises a barrier between us and the divine
+sufferer.  Unconsciously we say to ourselves, "Christ suffered, of
+course, but He did not suffer as we should have suffered in His place.
+His were not the real sufferings of a real man."
+</P>
+
+<P>
+If the passion of Christ and that of Socrates were weighed in the same
+balances, there would be less indifference to-day to the gospel story.
+Were Christ the Man realised as such, visualised, as other great men of
+history are visualised, among his followers, the hero worship that
+inspired the early church would revive.  What makes Christians
+indifferent to Christ's sufferings is not the lapse of centuries nor
+weakness of imagination but a subconscious monophysitism.  There is to
+most minds a haze of unreality overhanging the accounts of His life and
+death.  They forget that He shared human experience to the full.  They
+think of Him as doing things <I>rhêidíôs</I> like the Homeric gods.  In
+point of fact, His great results were achieved only after long
+laborious exertion.  His was a life of strenuous human activity,
+physical and mental.  Even His miracles were accompanied by a physical
+throb of sympathy; virtue went out of Him.  Redemption made it
+necessary.  Enthusiastic devotion to a person must be grounded in
+community of experience.  It is the human touches in the drama of
+Christ's life that make the most powerful appeal to mankind.  Yet the
+human element is obscured, as a rule, in modern presentations of the
+gospel.  For spiritual minds it is comparatively easy to apprehend a
+divine Christ.  To apprehend a human Christ makes a larger call on
+their imagination and their sympathy.  Spiritual men are naturally
+monophysite in their thinking.  They shrink from the mental effort that
+diphysitism demands.  Their attention is focussed on Christ's
+superiority to human limitations.  They scarcely see the miracle of the
+human, and thus they miss the import of the divine miracle.  In the
+atmosphere of monophysitism mysticism thrives, but devotion decays.  We
+may instance the almost total disappearance of the crusading spirit.
+The Christ to whom our thoughts usually turn is an omnipresent ideal
+with no historical or local associations.  His birth-place and His
+country evoke only a lukewarm sentiment.  The church's year is
+neglected.  The historical facts of Christ's life are often regarded as
+of only minor importance.  Piety used to consist in personal loyalty to
+the Founder of a universal religion; it is now considered synonymous
+with obedience to the "golden rule."
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+TO ATTRIBUTE OMNISCIENCE TO CHRIST'S HUMAN NATURE IS MONOPHYSITISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Within recent times the question as to the limitation of Christ's
+knowledge was hotly debated.  That debate showed how much uncertainty
+on Christological questions exists and how strong monophysite opinion
+still is.  In spite of Christ's own <I>dicta</I>, in spite of the dogma of
+two natures, denial of the limitation was widespread and persistent.
+To many devout minds it seems impious to speak of Christ's ignorance.
+This is a case in which the Chalcedonian definition is an invaluable
+guide.  If one brings to an examination of Christ's nature the
+preconceived notion of His omniscience, the doctrine of the limitation
+of His knowledge seems an outrage on belief; but if one approaches the
+question with the orthodox formula in mind, one is prepared to find
+that His cognitive faculties were perfectly human and humanly perfect.
+So we find it.  His knowledge and His faculties of knowledge on the
+lower plane of His experience were essentially the same as ours.  He
+thought in our categories.  He used our organon, perfect of its kind,
+but still a human organon.  As man, inevitably, He had thoughts
+uncognised; and such a mental state we call "ignorance."  His mind
+passed through stages of development as ours does.  Education widened
+His horizon, strengthened His faculties, and increased His knowledge.
+Advance in knowledge implies a prior state of relative ignorance.  The
+word "ignorance" as applied to Christ sounds very terrible; but
+investigation of its meaning robs it of its terrors.  We use the word
+in two senses.  On the one hand it may mean the absence of a thought,
+its absolute non-presence in consciousness.  On the other it may mean
+thought unrelated to experience, one whose implications are not or
+cannot be fully deduced, in fact, the incomplete cognition of an idea.
+In neither case does it involve imperfection in the instrument or moral
+fault.  On the contrary ignorance is a mark of the normal in cognition.
+If ignorance and limitation of knowledge were not found in Christ, we
+should be forced to agree with Apollinaris that the divine Logos had
+superseded His human intellect.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+Ignorance in so far as it is a positive attribute is far from being a
+mark of imperfection.  It is a true paradox that ignorance like
+obliviscence forms part of the process of human cognising.  Probably in
+the truth of things memory is of the essence of mind.  Thoughts
+naturally and spontaneously reproduce themselves.  The past of
+experience tends automatically to carry forward into the present.  The
+function of the brain then, or of a mental faculty intimately
+co-operating with the brain is to discriminate, to sift and select, to
+prolong into present consciousness what is of importance for action and
+to relegate the irrelevant to partial or total oblivion.  From this
+psychological standpoint ignorance and obliviscence are seen to be
+achievements of the intellect.  The presence of all facts in a human
+consciousness is unthinkable.  If it were possible, it would paralyse
+action.  If we exempt Christ from the law of ignorance and
+obliviscence, we <I>ipso facto</I> dehumanise his cognition.  When we say
+that Jesus was ignorant of much scientific truth, or that his
+prescience was limited, we do not compromise His dignity.  We simply
+assert the naturalness of His intellect and the true humanity of that
+element of His nature.  To do otherwise, to claim omniscience for His
+human intellect is gross monophysitism.  His knowledge was deeper,
+surer, more penetrating than ours, because the light of His divine
+intuition streamed through the veil of sense and illumined the lower
+phases of intelligence.  This is an instance of the <I>communicatio
+idiomatum</I>.  The properties of the two natures act and react upon one
+another.  But we must make the distinction of natures our
+starting-point, or fusion will take place.  There must be <I>idiomata</I>
+first, or the <I>communicatio</I> is meaningless.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE PRESENT EXISTENCE OF CHRIST'S HUMAN NATURE
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The view taken of the Christ of the past necessarily affects belief in
+the Christ of the present.  It is scarcely possible to realise the
+present existence of a human Christ, unless the fact of His actual
+human existence in the first century of our era be grasped.  If He had
+but one nature on earth, He has but one nature now in heaven.  If the
+historic Christ was monophysite, so also is the Christ to whom we pray.
+In this consequence consists the seriousness of modern monophysitism.
+The present reality of His human nature is to-day even among His
+followers doubted, obscured, or forgotten.  Christ is to many spiritual
+minds merely an ideal personality, a summary of their own ethical
+ideals.  They perhaps regard Him as a disembodied spirit or mysterious
+influence.  They rarely attain the catholic standpoint and see the
+human nature as a psychic entity actually existent to-day.  At any rate
+the doctrine is not thought out to its consequences.  The "perpetual
+intercession" is, it is feared, little more than a phrase.  That Christ
+as man still intercedes for men is a verity not understood and only
+half appreciated.  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 pray.  The Church teaches that there
+is somewhere, in some transcendent form of existence, a being with
+perfect human mind, whose will in strength and scope is perfectly
+proportioned to His knowledge, whose feelings are in perfect mutual
+harmony, whose psychic nature finds outward expression in a glorified
+body; that this perfect being once walked this earth, and yet had and
+has the ground of His being in a divine personality.  Such a Christ the
+latent monophysitism of our thinking hides from our view.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+THE DOCTRINE OF SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION DUE TO MONOPHYSITISM
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+The doctrines of Christ's person and of His work are intimately
+associated.  What He did depended on what He was.  Christology and
+Soteriology act and react upon each other.  If Christology is crippled,
+Soteriology goes lame.  Christ takes His stand in the centre of the
+cosmic process in virtue of His unique being.  In that He unites deity
+and humanity in His own person, He brought redemption within the reach
+of mankind.  His redemption of humanity was as definite a fact as His
+assumption of human nature.  Both to the Christian are objective
+historical facts; if either of them falls to the ground, so does the
+other; and with that collapse goes the purpose of creation and
+humanity's hope.  A docetic interpretation of the human nature entails
+a docetic view of redemption.  Monophysitism, as we have seen, casts
+doubts upon the reality of the sufferings and humanity of Christ; in so
+doing it compromises the work He accomplished.  Atonement ceases to be
+a cosmic transaction completed on Calvary, and becomes a subjective
+process.  Redemption is made into an attitude, or rather a change of
+attitude, on the part of the individual.  That Christ wrought a power
+and hope for man which man could not achieve for himself is not a
+familiar doctrine to-day.  Pain, not sin, is the great modern problem.
+The Cross is made to stand for sympathy, not for satisfaction.
+Salvation, achieved at a definite moment of history and conferred on
+believers of subsequent generations, rests for its foundations on the
+objective assumption of human nature by a divine person.  If the
+foundations be undermined, as monophysitism undermines them, the
+superstructure crumbles.  Redemption becomes improvement by effort and
+self-help, or a constant endeavour after a private ideal of conduct.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM LIMITS THE SCOPE OF REDEMPTION
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Monophysitism shows itself also in the modern tendency to narrow the
+scope of redemption.  Partial salvation is offered as a substitute for
+the salvation of the entire man.  This tendency is a natural result of
+narrowing the import of the incarnation.  It runs counter to orthodox
+Christology and the derivate doctrines.  A divine economy is traceable
+in God's dealings with men; there is nothing purposeless, nothing
+otiose in God's dispensation.  The Church's invariable answer to the
+Apollinarians was grounded in belief in this economy.  She argued that
+Christ could not redeem what He did not assume, and, conversely, that
+what He assumed He redeemed.  He assumed human nature in its entirety,
+thought, will, feeling and body; therefore not one of those elements of
+human nature lies outside the scope of redemption.  Monophysitism
+excludes some or all of those elements from the being of the incarnate
+Christ, and by so doing deprives the corresponding elements in man's
+nature of their rightful share in the benefit of redemption.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+The feeling that some parts of human nature are more fitted to survive
+than others is wide-spread to-day.  It is found within as well as
+without the Church.  We constantly read of the "survival factor."  The
+term implies the belief that at death part of the man's nature survives
+and part perishes.  There is, however, no general agreement as to which
+part constitutes the "survival factor."  The intellectualist pins his
+faith to the immortality of the reason.  He is content to let death
+deprive him of everything except the logical faculty.  For the aesthete
+beauty alone is eternal, and his hope for the future lies in the
+continuance of his aesthetic sense.  The materialist sees permanence
+only in the indestructibility of the ultimate physical constituents of
+his body.  The epigenesis of a spiritual body lies outside his horizon.
+The volitionist finds all the value of life in the moral nature.  For
+him the good will persists when all else is resolved into nothingness.
+Character alone, he says, survives the shock of death.  All these
+limited views of survival are symptoms of monophysite ways of thinking.
+The Christian, on the contrary, holds that what is redeemed <I>eo ipso</I>
+survives.  Whatever else is involved in redemption persistence
+certainly is included.  Monophysitism stands for a partial redemption;
+but to the orthodox who believe that Christ assumed human nature in its
+entirety, each part and the whole are of infinite value.  He holds that
+the strengthening, purifying, and perfecting that salvation brings
+apply to the psychic and the physical natures, that no part is exempt,
+that neither intellect nor will nor feeling ceases with death, that the
+range of reason will be increased, and its operation made more sure,
+that lofty and sustained endeavour will replace the transient energy of
+the earthly will, that feeling will be enhanced, harmonised, and
+purified, that a spiritual body continuous with the body of the flesh
+will express man's heavenly experience.  These high far-reaching hopes
+rest on the doctrines of catholic Christology.  Christ assumed our
+nature complete in body and psychic parts.  He did so with a purpose,
+and that purpose could be none other than the redemption of the body
+and of all the psychic elements.  To the mystic, body and human
+activities may seem only transient and unworthy of a place in heaven.
+Such is false spirituality.  It is contrary to the tenor of catholic
+teaching.  The incarnation brought divine and human together on earth.
+The resurrection fixed their union.  The ascension gave humanity an
+eternal place among eternal things.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+MONOPHYSITISM SHOWN IN THE MODERN TENDENCY <BR>
+TO MAKE THE DEATH OF CHRIST A SECONDARY FACTOR <BR>
+IN THE SCHEME OF REDEMPTION
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+We have seen above that monophysitism discredits the reality of
+Christ's sufferings.  Dogmatic reasons apart, the monophysite is
+motived by a repugnance to physical pain and by a wish to exclude it
+from the experience of the human ideal.  To this motive we can trace
+the modern tendency to transfer the doctrinal centre of gravity from
+the Passion to the incarnation.  The Passion and Death used to occupy
+the first place in the thoughts of Christians and formed the foundation
+for all theories of atonement.  The incarnation was regarded as, for
+the purposes of dogma, subsidiary.  Within recent times the position
+has been reversed.  The main stress falls now on the incarnation.  The
+Passion seems of secondary importance, if, as modern theology often
+teaches, all purposes of redemption were secured prior to it.  In thus
+changing the venue of redemption modern theology is wrong.  The mistake
+is prompted largely, so it seems to the writer, by monophysitism latent
+in modern religious thought; at any rate strict adherence to the
+catholic doctrine of two natures would have prevented it.  The human
+nature that Christ assumed had to be perfected through suffering;
+otherwise it could not attain that universality and representative
+character which enabled it to become the medium of universal salvation.
+If it had been enough for the divine spirit to mingle with men, to show
+them a pattern life, and to touch them to higher things, an apparition
+would have been adequate, and no community of suffering would have been
+necessary.  Since Christ not only appeared as man, but experienced in
+His flesh all man's experiences, death which is the climax of human
+experience fell to His lot and set the seal to the divine enterprise.
+Since He who died was the flesh and blood embodiment of the cosmic
+relation.  His death has cosmic significance.  The doctrinal edifice in
+which Calvary is of ornamental and not of structural value has
+monophysitism for its foundation.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF CHRISTIANITY OBSCURED
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Christ's mission is misunderstood to-day as well as His cosmic work.
+In certain religious quarters where zeal is not balanced by learning,
+His mission as the founder of a religious society is forgotten.  To
+those who are deficient in historic sense the continuity of the Church
+down the centuries seems unimportant, and institutional religion a
+hindrance rather than a help to the spiritual life of the individual
+Christian.  Pietism of this kind has always been present in the church;
+to-day it is prevalent.  It nominally associates its piety with the
+historic Christ, but actually it worships an ideal constructed by its
+own ethical imagination.  Such pietists spiritualise the faith.  The
+facts of the historic creed are to them little more than symbols of
+religious truth.  Spiritual resurrection, spiritual ascension are the
+only miracles for them.  This tendency to spiritualise everything is a
+phase of monophysitism.  It results from losing sight of the person of
+the historic Christ, and resolving His assumption of human nature into
+the assumption of a title.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+CHRISTOLOGY A DETERMINANT OF SACRAMENTAL THOUGHT
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+Errors in sacramental teaching necessarily accompany misconceptions of
+the person of Christ.  The incarnation is a cosmic sacrament, the
+meeting-point of divine and human, and the sacraments of the church are
+types of the vaster mystery.  In both type and antitype it is all
+important to give due weight to divine and human, and not to exalt one
+element at the expense of the other.  Those who undervalue the human
+nature of Christ are disposed to undervalue the outward sign in the
+sacraments.  Not appreciating the hypostatic union of divine with
+human, they misunderstand the sacramental union of the same elements.
+Blind to the significance of Christ's humanity in the economy of
+redemption, they fail to see how matter can be the channel of
+sacramental grace.  Yet the discipline of faith is the same in both
+cases.  The Christian enterprise is not merely to believe in the
+divine, but to believe in the divine manifested in the human.
+</P>
+
+<P>
+There are two divergent, almost opposing, schools of sacramental
+teaching, both of which have inherited the spirit of monophysitism.
+Both are instances of sacramental monism.  First, there are those who
+identify the outward signs and the inward grace; second, those to whom
+the inward grace is everything and the outward sign nothing.  Both
+schools of thought destroy the nature of a sacrament.  The radical
+error of both consists in undervaluing the human and material.  In the
+first case the error takes the form of the transubstantiation doctrine,
+which is exactly parallel to the extreme form of Eutychianism.
+According to Eutyches, the human nature of Christ was absorbed into the
+divine and lost there; the truth of His being was the divine
+personality; the human element was only an appearance.  Similarly the
+transubstantiation theory conceives the mutation of the <I>substance</I> of
+the material elements and the loss of their proper nature; the
+appearance of reality that the <I>accidents</I> possess is an illusion of
+the senses.  We may note in passing that the opposite error to
+transubstantiation finds its Christological parallel in Nestorianism.
+Socinianism which separates symbol from sacramental grace is
+sacramental dualism, as Nestorianism is Christological dualism.  Both
+abandon a vital unity of divine and human.  The pietistic or mystical
+view of the sacraments does so too, but in a different way.  This
+second form of sacramental monism has much in common with the doctrine
+of one nature.  To the pietist the divine seems all important, and the
+material no help, but rather a hindrance to the spiritual life.  The
+faith of the individual to him is the seat of the efficacy of the
+sacraments; he regards matter as unreal if not sinful, and in either
+case unworthy to be a channel of divine grace.  Echo after echo of
+monophysite thought can be caught here.  The surest way to combat
+sacramental errors on both sides is a clear and definite statement of
+the catholic doctrine of Christology.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR>
+
+<H4 ALIGN="center">
+NEED OF A MENTAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST
+</H4>
+
+<P>
+As the interval of time widens, separating Christians from the human
+life of their God, the more urgent becomes the obligation to put forth
+a constructive effort of the historical imagination.  The attempt to
+keep that memory green grows harder and harder as the centuries pass;
+but Christians must make it; otherwise the historical character of
+their religion will perish.  There need be no fear that the interests
+of spiritual religion will suffer.  Amongst moderns the danger of
+idealising the human is greater than that of humanising the divine.  An
+intelligent appreciation of Christ's human life draws out love and
+kindles reverence towards the divine personality who condescended to
+the level of mankind.  We may point by way of illustration to the
+effect of biblical criticism.  Christians of a previous generation
+dreaded the touch of criticism.  They thought it profanation.  They
+refused to admit any human element in the bible.  Criticism, however,
+had its way.  Bibliolatry had to go.  The result is that the bible is a
+living book to us to-day.  In spite of the fears of the devout there
+was little to lose and much to gain by recognising the human element in
+the bible.  As with the written word, so with the living Word.  Without
+a recognition of the human element in His being, a full assimilation of
+His teaching and an intimate perception of His real presence are
+unattainable.  If this recognition be accorded, the great past will
+live again in the present.  Hostile critics study the life and
+character of Christ and the records of them with a view to proving that
+He was merely man.  Believers may adopt their method with a different
+object.  They may undertake the same study in order to comprehend the
+wonder of the Man, and so rise to some conception of the wonder of the
+God.  The gospels are read mainly as a handbook of devotion; they
+should be studied as the biography of a hero.  The face-value of its
+incidents is often neglected, while the reader seeks allegorical and
+mystical interpretations.  To form a mental picture of Christ in His
+environment, to read ourselves back into His world and then into His
+ways of thought, such efforts are more than ever needed to-day, and
+they are more than ever absent.  Historic sense and imagination should
+be allowed to play upon the recorded acts and sayings of Jesus, until a
+great temple to His memory rises in the high places of the mind,
+dominating thence the whole intellectual and moral life.  Such an
+enterprise would infuse life and meaning into the Christological
+formula, and would effect, so to speak, a reconstruction of the human
+nature of the historic Christ.  The Christian's attitude towards the
+Man Christ Jesus is the "acid test" of the sincerity of his faith.  No
+one can bring intellectual difficulties to a being to whom cognising
+was a foreign process, nor moral difficulties to one who knew no
+conflict of wills, nor sorrows to one "all breathing human passion far
+above."  If we picture the ideal of all mankind as thinking our
+thoughts, willing as we will, feeling as we feel, we are united to Him
+by an intellectual, moral and emotional bond of sympathy.  Such a
+threefold cord is not quickly broken.  Communion with such a Being
+leads the worshipper to the heart of the Christian religion.
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR><BR>
+
+<P CLASS="finis">
+THE END
+</P>
+
+<BR><BR><BR><BR>
+
+<H5 ALIGN="center">
+PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES.
+</H5>
+
+<BR><BR><BR><BR>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of Project Gutenberg's Monophysitism Past and Present, by A. A. Luce
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MONOPHYSITISM PAST AND PRESENT ***
+
+***** This file should be named 30219-h.htm or 30219-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        https://www.gutenberg.org/3/0/2/1/30219/
+
+Produced by Al Haines
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</BODY>
+
+</HTML>
+
diff --git a/30219.txt b/30219.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f492dd9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/30219.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,3698 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Monophysitism Past and Present, by A. A. Luce
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Monophysitism Past and Present
+       A Study in Christology
+
+Author: A. A. Luce
+
+Release Date: December 1, 2009 [EBook #30219]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MONOPHYSITISM PAST AND PRESENT ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Al Haines
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM
+
+PAST AND PRESENT
+
+
+A STUDY IN CHRISTOLOGY
+
+
+
+BY
+
+A. A. LUCE, M.C., D.D.
+
+
+CAPTAIN LATE 12TH ROYAL IRISH RIFLES
+
+FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN
+
+
+
+
+
+LONDON
+
+SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE
+
+NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN CO.
+
+1920
+
+
+
+
+PRINTED BY
+
+WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
+
+LONDON AND BECCLES
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+CHAPTER
+
+   I.  THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+  II.  THE ORIGINS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+ III.  MONOPHYSITE DOCTRINE
+  IV.  THE ETHOS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+   V.  MONOPHYSITISM AND MODERN PSYCHOLOGY
+  VI.  MONOPHYSITISM IN THE PRESENT DAY
+
+
+
+
+BOOKS CONSULTED IN THE
+
+PREPARATION OF THIS ESSAY
+
+
+J. S. ASSEMANI, "Bibliotheca Orientalis," especially the Introductory
+Dissertation to Vol. II.
+
+A. HARNACK, "History of Dogma," translated by Speirs and Millar.
+
+J. C. ROBERTSON, "History of the Christian Church."
+
+WINDELBAND, "History of Philosophy," translated by Tufts.
+
+WRIGHT, "Short History of Syriac Literature."
+
+H. BERGSON, "Les donnees immediates de la conscience," "Matiere et
+Memoire," "L'evolution creatrice."
+
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM PAST AND PRESENT
+
+
+CHAPTER I
+
+THE METAPHYSICAL BASIS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+
+Monophysitism was a Christological heresy of the fifth century.  It was
+condemned by the church in the middle of that century at the council of
+Chalcedon.  Surviving its condemnation it flourished in the East for
+several centuries.  Its adherents formed themselves into a powerful
+church with orders and succession of their own.  Although the
+monophysite church has long since lost all influence, it is still in
+being.  The Coptic and Jacobite churches of Egypt and Mesopotamia,
+respectively, preserve to this day the doctrines and traditions of the
+primitive monophysites.
+
+The history of the sect, however, does not concern us here.  The
+writer's purpose is to review its doctrine.  Monophysitism is a system
+of religious thought, and, as such, its importance is out of all
+proportion to the present or even the past position of the churches
+that professed it.  Its significance lies in its universality.  It is
+grounded in the nature of the human mind.  It is found in West as well
+as East, to-day as well as in the early centuries of our era.  Wherever
+men bring intellect to bear on the problem of Christ's being, the
+tendency to regard Him as monophysite is present.
+
+An examination of the heresy is of practical value.  Our subject-matter
+is not an oriental antique or a curiosity of the intellect, but a
+present-day problem of vital moment to the Faith.  If we are concerned
+with a half-forgotten heresy, it is because a study of that heresy
+serves both as a preventive against error and as an introduction to the
+truth.  The doctor studies disease to ascertain the conditions of
+health; pathological cases are often his surest guide to the normal;
+just so the study of heresy is the best guide to orthodox Christology.
+It was in conflict with monophysitism that the church of the fifth
+century brought to completion her dogmatic utterances about Christ; and
+the individual thinker to-day can gain the surest grasp of true
+Christology by examining the monophysite perversion.
+
+With this practical purpose in view, we now proceed to an analysis of
+the heresy.  Monophysitism is a body of doctrine.  It is a dogmatic
+system, in which the individual dogmata are controlled by a principle
+or dominant idea.  As all the particular doctrines of monophysitism
+depend on this principle, and, as it is not properly a theological
+concept, but one borrowed from philosophy, we may call it "the
+metaphysical basis of monophysitism."  An intelligent grasp of this
+basic principle is necessary to an appreciation of the whole system.
+Accordingly, our first concern is to ascertain and exhibit this
+metaphysical basis.  In subsequent chapters we shall analyse in detail
+the doctrines specifically monophysite and trace the Christological
+errors back to their source in metaphysic.
+
+
+
+THE _A PRIORI_ AND _A POSTERIORI_ IN CHRISTOLOGY
+
+The following considerations prove the necessity of this procedure.
+Two methods of examining the being of Christ can be distinguished.
+According to the one method the facts of His life are reviewed as they
+are presented in the New Testament, and a formula is then constructed
+to fit them.  The other method starts from the concept of a mediator
+between God and man.  It supposes that concept actualised, and asks the
+question, "Of what nature must such a mediator be?"  These methods may
+be distinguished, but they cannot be separated.  No one, however
+scientific, can come to a study of the life of Jesus with an absolutely
+open mind.  Presuppositions are inevitable.  Similarly, as the _a
+priori_ thinker develops his concept of a mediator, he compares the
+results of his thinking at every stage with the picture presented in
+the Gospel story, and that picture unavoidably modifies his deductions.
+Both diphysite and monophysite used a combination of these two methods.
+Each party took the recorded facts and interpreted them in accordance
+with their notion of what a mediator should be.  Both parties studied
+the same facts; but the _a priori_ of their thought differed, and so
+their conclusions differed.  In the realm of Christology this _a
+priori_ of thought is of paramount importance.  Preconceived opinions
+inevitably colour our mental picture of Christ.  Readers of the Gospel
+narrative find there the Christ they are prepared to find.  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 rests.  That philosophy supplies the _a priori_, or the
+presupposition, or the metaphysical basis, whichever name we prefer.
+
+We do not suggest that theologians have consciously adopted a
+metaphysical principle as the basis of their beliefs, and then have
+applied it to the special problem of Christology.  That is a possible
+method but not the usual one.  In most cases the philosophic basis
+remains in the background of consciousness; its existence is
+unrecognised and its influence undetected.  If Christian thinkers took
+the trouble to analyse the basis of their beliefs about Christ, they
+would not halt, as they so often do, at the stage of monophysitism.  If
+they laid bare to the foundations the structure of their faith, the
+danger of error would be reduced to a minimum.  Viewed from the
+standpoint of timeless reason, monophysitism is based on a definite
+metaphysical idea.  Not all monophysites have consciously adopted that
+basis; many, had they recognised its presence, would have rejected it.
+But it was present as a tendency.  A tendency may be neutralised by
+counteracting causes; but it has its effect, and sooner or later it
+will produce positive results.
+
+
+
+THE THREE TYPICAL CHRISTOLOGIES
+
+The same truth holds of the other Christological systems.  A different
+metaphysical idea lies at the root of each.  Nestorian, monophysite,
+catholic, these three were the main types of Christologian in the fifth
+century.  Each studied Christ's life.  After studying it, the Nestorian
+said of Him, "There are two persons here."  "Not so," said the
+monophysite, "I see but one incarnate nature of God the Word."  The
+catholic replied, "You are both wrong; there is one person in two
+natures."  All three types deserve close study.  The thinkers were
+devout and sincere, and, for the most part, able men.  There is no
+question here of superficial uninformed thought, nor of moral
+obliquity.  The disagreement was due not to their vision but to their
+view point, not to the object of their thought or the process of their
+thinking, but to their different presuppositions and starting points.
+
+Presented in this way the monophysite and other Christological
+controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries become phases of the
+cosmic problem.  They thus regain the dignity which is theirs by right,
+and which they lose in the ordinary church histories.  The heat of
+passion they aroused becomes intelligible.  It was no battle about
+words.  The stakes were high.  The controversialists championed
+far-reaching principles with a decisive influence on the course of
+thought and conduct.  Unfriendly critics usually portray the
+Christologians as narrow-minded and audacious.  So, no doubt, they
+were, but they were not wrong-headed.  If the matters in dispute
+between theist, deist, and pantheist are trivialities, then and then
+only can we regard the enterprise of the Christologians as chimerical
+and their achievements as futile.  The different formulae represented
+attitudes of mind fundamentally opposed.  No peace between catholic and
+monophysite was possible.  They had conflicting conceptions of ultimate
+truth.
+
+
+
+DEPENDENCE OF CHRISTOLOGY ON PHILOSOPHY
+
+We mentioned above the two other chief Christological systems, the
+Nestorian and the catholic.  No analysis of monophysitism which omitted
+a reference to these systems would be complete.  They were three nearly
+contemporary attempts to solve the same problem.  The comparison is of
+special interest when, as here, fundamental principles are under
+examination.  It demonstrates the closeness of the connection between
+the Christological and the cosmic problems.  In each of the three cases
+we find that a school of philosophy corresponds to the school of
+theology, and that the philosopher's dominant idea about the cosmos
+decided the theologian's interpretation of Christ.
+
+This connection between philosophy and Christology is of early date.
+From the nature of both disciplines it had to be.  Even in apostolic
+days the meaning of the incarnation was realised.  Christ was
+apprehended as a being of more than national or terrestrial importance.
+The Pauline and Johannine Christologies gave cosmic significance to His
+work, and so inevitably to His Person.  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 Stoics.  That is to say, He
+stands not only between God and man, but between Creator and creation.
+He is the embodiment of the cosmic relation.  From early days, then,
+philosophy and religion were working at the same problem; their paths
+met at the one goal of the Ideal Person who satisfied both head and
+heart.  The systematic Christology of the fifth century was, therefore,
+a completion of the work begun in the first.
+
+
+
+THE CHRISTOLOGICAL AND THE COSMIC PROBLEMS
+
+The essence of the Christological problem is the question as to the
+union of natures in Christ.  Are there two natures divine and human in
+Him?  Is each distinct from the other and from the person?  Is the
+distinction conceptual or actual?  The incarnation is a union.  Is it a
+real union?  If so, what did it unite?  We have seen that such
+questions cannot be approached without presuppositions.  What these
+presuppositions shall be is decided in the sphere of a wider problem.
+This wider problem is known as the cosmic problem.  The solution given
+to it prescribes the presuppositions of any attempt to solve the
+specialised problem.  We shall proceed to sketch the cosmic problem,
+and to indicate the three main types of answers given to it.  It will
+then be evident that these three answers find their respective
+counterparts in the Nestorian, monophysite and the catholic solutions
+of the Christological problem.
+
+As man's intellectual powers mature, two supreme generalisations force
+themselves on his consciousness.  He conceives his experience as a
+whole and calls it the world; he conceives the basis of his experience
+as a whole and calls it God.  To some minds the world, to some minds
+God, is the greater reality; but both concepts are present in varying
+proportions wherever thought becomes self-conscious.  Here we have in
+its lowest terms the material for the ontological question, the first
+and the last problem of philosophy.  God and the world, at first dimly
+conceived and scarcely differentiated, gradually separate and take
+shape in the mind as distinct entities.  The concepts become
+principles, fixed by language and mental imagery.  The gulf between
+them widens until they stand at opposite poles of thought.  In their
+isolation they constitute a standing challenge to the mind of man.  If
+he thinks the world in terms of time, he must postulate a creator.  If
+he thinks the world out of time, he is forced to conceive a ground of
+the world's being.  The world cannot be thought without God nor God
+without the world.  The one necessitates the other.  Yet when the
+thinker tries to define the terms, he can at first only do so by
+negatives.  The world is what God is not, and God is what the world is
+not.  The two primary concepts thus attract and repel each other.  The
+mind's first task is to grasp them in their difference.  It cannot rest
+there, but must proceed to attempt to reunite them and grasp them in
+their unity.  Thus the main problem of philosophy is to conceive and
+find expression for the relation between God and the world.
+Christology attacks essentially the same problem.  Christology is an
+attempt to define the relation between God and the world in terms of
+personality.
+
+This relation has been conceived in three modes.  According to the
+level of thought reached, or, as led by their disposition and
+education, men have made their choice between three mediating concepts.
+Hence derive three divergent types of thought and three outlooks on
+life fundamentally opposed.  We shall take them in their logical
+sequence for convenience of treatment.  The historical connection is of
+no importance for our present purpose, but it is noteworthy that the
+time order both of the schools of philosophy and of the corresponding
+Christological systems follows approximately the logical order.
+
+
+
+THE FIRST SOLUTION OF THE COSMIC PROBLEM--DUALISM
+
+The first attempted solution of the cosmic problem is best expressed in
+the concept "co-existence."  God _and_ the world co-exist.  God is, and
+the world is; their relation is expressed by an "and."  "God and the
+world" is the truth, all that man can and need know.  This solution is
+verbal.  It leaves the problem more or less as it finds it.  The two
+principles remain ultimates; neither is reduced to the other.  God
+still stands outside the world and the world outside God.  Neither can
+explain the other.  This dualism is the lowest stage of ontological
+thought.  The thinker sees the problem, only to turn away from it.  He
+surmises that there is some relation between the two; but he cannot
+define it, and it remains ineffectual.  This was Plato's early
+standpoint.  He established the idea as the truth of the thing, but he
+failed to find expression for the relation between idea and ideate.  He
+took refuge in symbolical language, and spoke of the thing as a "copy"
+of the idea or as a "participant" in it.  But as there was no causation
+on the one side or dependence on the other side, all that the earlier
+Platonic philosophy achieved was in its ideal world to duplicate the
+real.  Plato's heaven simply co-exists with the world, and the relation
+between them is merely verbal.
+
+This metaphysical idea survived Plato and Plato's system, and passed
+into common currency.  It found and still finds expression in numerous
+speculative and practical systems.  In religious ontology we find it in
+deism.  According to the deist there was once at a definite point of
+time a relation between God and the world, the relation of creation.
+But, creation finished, the relation ceased.  In other words, God
+created the world, and then withdrew into Himself, leaving the world to
+work out its own salvation.  The deist believes in God; but his is a
+self-contained God, who does not interfere in the course of things or
+continue creating.  Such a conception of God is useless for religious
+purposes, because it represents Him as out of all relation with the
+world.
+
+
+
+CHRISTOLOGICAL DUALISM--NESTORIANISM
+
+The Christological counterpart of dualism and of deism is Nestorianism.
+The Nestorians halt at the lowest stage of Christological thought.
+They admit Christ to be the meeting-point of God and man, but they
+nullify the admission by introducing dualism into the person of Christ.
+They set out to find the solution of the cosmic problem in Christ; they
+endeavour to express the relation between God and the world in terms of
+His personality.  They bring the two concepts together, but they do not
+weld them.  Faith and courage fail them at the critical moment.  They
+substitute an association for a union.  They leave God and man
+co-existing in Christ, but not united there.
+
+Nestorianism is a halfway house on the road from Arianism to
+Christianity.  It is a weak compromise.  The deity in Christ is
+admitted, but its unity with humanity denied.  The divine remains
+external to the human nature.  According to the doctrine ascribed to
+Nestorius two persons, the son of God and the son of Mary, at the
+Baptism were mysteriously associated.  The union consists partly in
+identity of name, partly in the gradual deepening of the association.
+As Jesus grew in spiritual power and knowledge and obedience to the
+divine will, the union which at first was relative gradually deepened
+towards an absolute union.  Divinity was not His birthright, but
+acquired.  Thus throughout His life the two personalities remained
+external to one another.  The divine worked miracles; the human
+suffered.  The Nestorian could pride himself on having preserved the
+reality of the divine and the reality of the human; he could worship
+the one and imitate the other.  But his system was non-Christian,
+because it excludes the element of mediation.  A dual personality could
+never make atonement or redeem humanity.  God and man in Christ were
+brought into nominal contact, but there was provided no channel by
+which the divine virtue might pass into the human.  The Nestorian
+remains content with his solution, because the background of his
+thought is dualist.  The thinker's attitude to the cosmic problem
+decides his attitude to the Christological problem.  Content to couple
+God and the world by an "and," he similarly couples by an "and" the
+Logos and Jesus Christ.  Dividing God from the world, he divides
+Christ.  Abandoning metaphysical relation between the cosmic
+principles, he despairs of finding, or, rather, has no motive for
+seeking a personal relation between God and man in the being of Christ.
+
+
+
+SECOND SOLUTION OF THE COSMIC PROBLEM--MONISM
+
+The second solution given to the cosmic problem is of special
+importance for our thesis.  It had a direct influence on monophysitism,
+and may be regarded as supplying the metaphysical basis for that
+heresy.  It represents an advance to a higher stage of thought, just as
+monophysitism, which depends on it, is an advance on Nestorianism, and
+has always been regarded as a more venial heresy.
+
+The mind finding no satisfaction in dualism advances to monism.  The
+spectacle of two unrelated ultimate principles impels it to seek and,
+if necessary, to invent some mode of reconciling them.  Explain it as
+we may, the craving for unity, for synthesis, for mediation is radical
+in human thought.  The mind cannot rest at anything short of it.  God
+and the world, held asunder conceptually or only nominally united,
+constitute a contradiction _in excelsis_, and, as such, provide an
+irresistible motive for further and deeper thought.
+
+As is natural, the swing of the pendulum carries the mind to the
+opposite extreme.  Co-existence failing to supply the required
+solution, the key is sought in identity.  God and the world are thought
+as identical.  The terms are connected by the copula.  God _is_ the
+world, and the world _is_ God.  This is the truth of being, for the
+monist.  The two principles are merged in one, and the contradiction
+solved by an assertion of the identity of the contradictories.  Monism
+takes two forms.  It may be either materialist or spiritual.  One term
+must be selected as the reality, and the other written off as an
+illusion.  If the thinker's bent of mind be scientific, he is disposed
+to make the material world the only objective reality, and God becomes
+simply a working hypothesis or a creation of the subjective mind.  It
+would be beside our purpose to do more than mention this phase of
+monism.  Spiritual monism, however, requires lengthier treatment; it is
+of vital importance to our subject.  In this case the mind takes sides
+with God as against the world.  God is the reality and the world the
+illusion.  The world is God, in spite of appearances to the contrary.
+As world it has no substantive reality; it has no existence for self.
+It is the shadow of God, an emanation from Him, or an aspect of Him.
+Like dualism, monism is only a sham solution of the cosmic problem.  It
+fails to keep prominent the idea of relation.  A relation must relate.
+If its terms are merged, the relation falls to the ground.  A relation
+must be such that, while the terms are unified, they are preserved as
+realities.  It must both unify and keep distinct.  To abandon either
+God or the world is a counsel of despair.  To detract from the reality
+of either is treason to fact and tantamount to a shelving of the cosmic
+problem.
+
+
+
+PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL MONISM
+
+The systems that identify God and the world range from the crude
+materialism of Democritus to the lofty spiritualism of Plotinus.  Stoic
+cosmology occupies an intermediate position.  The Stoic was nominally a
+pantheist, but he seems to have oscillated between a spiritual and a
+materialist explanation of the universal being.  The monist system that
+prepared the soil for monophysitism and constantly fostered its growth
+was Neo-Platonism.  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 life.  The world and the human spirit,
+for Plotinus, were simply manifestations of God.  He taught that, as
+light issues from the sun and proceeds forth on its way, growing
+gradually dimmer till it passes into darkness, so the world of thought
+and thing has no true being apart from God, from whom it proceeded and
+to whom it returns.  Spiritual monism found in Alexandria a congenial
+home.  Blending there with oriental mysticism it produced a crop of
+gnostic speculative systems, in all of which Acosmism or a denial of
+the world was the keynote.  Whether the problem was conceived in terms
+of being or of value, the result was the same.  The world has no true
+being.  Its appearance of solidity is a sham.  It has no value.
+Compared with God, it is negligible.  It is but the shadow cast by the
+eternal sun.
+
+The monophysite tenets traceable to monism will be considered in detail
+in later chapters.  Here our concern is to show that monism supplies
+the metaphysical principle on which the heresy is based; that, as
+dualism provides the _a priori_ of Nestorian thought, monism provides
+the _a priori_ of monophysite thought.
+
+
+
+CHRISTOLOGICAL MONISM--MONOPHYSITISM
+
+The essential doctrine of monophysitism is the assertion of the
+absolute numerical unity of the person of Christ.  It carries to
+extremes its denial of the dual personality maintained by the
+Nestorians.  All vestiges of duality were banished from His being;
+there were not two persons: there were not even two natures.  There was
+in Christ only the one nature of God the Word.  The human nature at the
+incarnation was absorbed into the divine.  It no more has substantive
+existence than has the world in a pantheistic system.  This is monism
+in terms of personality.  Its presuppositions are those of a mind
+imbued with an all-powerful feeling for unity.  It is faced with the
+problem of reconciling God and the world in the person of Jesus Christ.
+It brings to that problem a prejudice against the real being and the
+real value of the world.  Hence it is led to draw the false conclusion
+that humanity, which is part of the world, is not a permanent element
+in the highest truth; that even perfect humanity, humanity
+representative of all that is noblest in the race, cannot be allowed
+true existence in the Ideal.
+
+Monism abandons the universal relation by abandoning one or other of
+the terms to be related.  Monophysitism cuts a similar knot in a
+similar fashion.  It jettisons redemption by excluding from the
+Redeemer all kinship with that which He came to redeem.  Nominally
+admitting human nature into union with deity, it destroys the reality
+of that transaction at a stroke by making the two natures identical.
+So the incarnation, for the monophysite, becomes a myth; no change in
+the nature of the Logos took place at it, and, consequently, no change
+in the nature of the Man Christ Jesus.
+
+We may trace the likeness between the cosmic and the Christological
+problems still further.  Monism is forced to attempt to give some
+account of the world's apparent reality.  Similarly monophysitism had
+to try to explain those facts of Christ's life which on the face of the
+Gospel narrative are human and normal.  The explanation offered is
+essentially the same in both systems.  The monist asserts that the
+world exists only in the mind of the thinker.  It is an illusion of the
+senses.  The duty of the philosopher is to overcome the illusion by
+turning away from the world of sense and fixing his mind on true being;
+by ascesis and contemplation he endeavours to attain the ecstatic
+state, in which the illusion of the world's reality disappears, and the
+potential identity of man with the universal spirit becomes actualised
+in experience.  Similarly, for the monophysite, the humanity of Christ
+was a creation of the senses.  Christ's body was a phantom, and His
+human mind simply an aspect of Him.  They were impressions left on the
+minds of His contemporaries.  Having no substantive existence, no
+reality in fact, they were to be ignored in Christological dogma.  They
+were not to be considered as part of the true Christ; they were not to
+be worshipped.  No spiritual value attached to them.  They were
+hindrances rather than helps to the religion that aimed at entire
+abandonment of self and absorption in the divine.
+
+
+
+THE THIRD SOLUTION OF THE COSMIC PROBLEM--IDENTITY IN DIFFERENCE
+
+We come now to the third and last solution of the cosmic problem.  As
+we develop it, we shall endeavour to show that it supplies that
+metaphysical idea which forms the basis of catholic Christology.  The
+two previous solutions failed.  They do not satisfy the philosopher and
+they mislead the theologian.  The one separates God from the world; the
+other merges them.  Thus both, in effect, abandon the original
+enterprise.  They destroy the relation instead of expressing it.  The
+concepts both of co-existence and of identity have proved fruitless in
+the speculative problem, and in Christology have given rise to heresy.
+The third school of thought takes as its starting point neither God,
+nor the world, nor the two as co-existing, but the relation of the two.
+It makes that relation such that the terms related are preserved in the
+relation.  Neither identity nor difference is the full truth, but
+identity in and through difference.  God is not the world, nor is the
+world God.  God is, and the world is.  Each are facts.  In their
+separateness they are not true facts.  It is only as we conceive the
+two in their oneness, a supra-numerical oneness, that we can give their
+full value to each.  The world is God's world; therefore it has being
+and value.  The cosmic relation then is expressed not by an "and," nor
+by an "is," but by an "of."  The God "_of_" the world is the key
+concept that unlocks the doors of the palace of truth.
+
+It was in the prominence given to this concept that Aristotle's system
+made a great advance on that of his predecessor.  Plato had established
+a world of ideas with the idea of the Good as its centre, but he left
+it unrelated to the world of experience.  Aristotle insisted on
+relating the ideal and the real.  His concept of relation was that of
+form and matter.  The world apart from God is matter apart from form.
+It has only potential reality.  When it becomes united to its form, it
+becomes actual.  Its form makes it a fact--what it has in it to be.
+Aristotle conceives different grades of being.  Unformed matter is the
+lowest of these grades, and God the highest.  Each grade supplies the
+matter of which the next highest grade is the form.  Ascending the
+scale of being at last we reach pure form.  Thus the ladder of
+development is constructed by which the world rises to its realisation
+in God.  Aristotle gave to humanity the conception of a God who
+transcends the world, and yet is immanent in it, as form is in matter.
+Thus Greek philosophy in Aristotle attained that spiritual monotheism
+which supplied the foundation for the edifice of Christian doctrine.
+
+The effect of Aristotle's teaching was felt by all the ecclesiastical
+parties in the fifth century.  As we shall see in a later chapter, some
+of the subsidiary elements of his philosophy are reflected in
+monophysitism.  The dominant ideas, however, of the system, the
+conception of God and the world and the relation between them, were
+taken over by the catholic theologians, and incorporated into their
+Christology.  We need not here inquire whether Aristotle's influence
+was direct or indirect.  No doubt many of the theologians who
+constructed Christian doctrine had read his works.  Whether that is so
+or not, they must have unconsciously assimilated his central doctrine.
+It was common property.  The determination to keep God a reality and
+the world a reality and yet relate the two became the controlling
+motive of their thinking.
+
+Aristotle in theory and application of theory has always a feeling for
+fact.  The individual thing and the world of individual things are, for
+him, never negligible.  Realised matter, life, the human spirit, human
+nature, are actualities and have their value as such.  They are not all
+on the same level of being; they do not occupy the same rank; and it is
+the philosopher's business to determine their respective positions in
+the scale of being and value.  But he cannot have his head in the
+clouds of contemplation, unless he have his feet on the earth of fact.
+
+
+
+THE ESSENCE OF CATHOLIC CHRISTOLOGY
+
+Catholic Christology has caught the spirit of Aristotle's teaching.  It
+is not primarily speculative.  It is in close touch with fact.  It is
+the outcome of a deep-felt want.  Redemption is the first demand of
+religious experience; so it is the motive and theme of all Christology.
+The soul views itself as a member of a world of souls estranged from
+God, and for its own peace and welfare seeks to effect a union between
+God and the world.  Such a union, to be effective, must preserve the
+being and value of the world.  If there were no world or only a
+valueless world, there would be nothing to redeem, or nothing worth
+redeeming.  Seeking that union in personality, and in the most
+marvellous personality of history, the orthodox theologians by a true
+instinct ascribed to Him both divine and human natures.  He is the
+cosmic unity of opposites.  His person is the cosmic relation.  In that
+person the lower term of the relation has true being and full value.
+Thus the Church steered a middle course between the Scylla of
+co-existence and the Charybdis of identity.
+
+These _a priori_ deductions as to the being of Christ were verified by
+a reference to fact.  The life-story of the historic Christ comprises
+two distinct groups of experience.  There are thoughts, deeds, and
+words attributed to Him that only God could have thought, done, and
+said.  There are as well thoughts, deeds and words of His that only a
+man could have thought, done and said.  Hence the diphysite doctrine
+was verified _a posteriori_.  Again, in both groups of experience there
+is a never-failing connecting link.  There is a unity lying deeper in
+His consciousness than the duality.  Christ, the Agent, is the same in
+both parts.  Whether as God or man, He is never out of character.
+Hence the unity of the person also was established _a posteriori_.
+Thus, to the orthodox Christologians, the expectation that the human
+Ideal would be a unity, comprising divinity and humanity, was justified
+by historical fact.
+
+They found a further verification on applying the test of practice.
+Orthodox Christology satisfies the requirements of the soul.  Man's
+chief spiritual need is access to God through "a daysman that might lay
+his hand upon both."  An exemplar, even though perfect, is not adequate
+to his need.  The _unio mystica_ can only be experienced by the
+leisured few.  Man demands a religion of redemption, a redemption that
+allows value to labour, to endeavour, to human thought, that recognises
+the reality of pain and sorrow and sin, a redemption that redeems
+humanity in all its phases and in the wealth of its experiences.  An
+Agent that has not shared to the full those experiences is useless for
+the purpose.  Redemption must be the work of One who knows God and
+knows man, of One who has the touch of sympathy; for to such a touch
+alone can humanity respond.  The Christology that makes Christ Jesus
+consubstantial with God and with man satisfies man's deep-felt need.
+
+
+
+SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER
+
+We have taken a triad of ontologies and a triad of Christological
+systems, placed them side by side, and examined them.  The result of
+that examination is a triple correspondence.  The metaphysical
+principle is found in each case worked out in a corresponding
+Christology.  The comparison is of general interest.  It reveals
+Christology as intimately connected with the workings of intellect, as
+in the main stream of the current of human thought, as capable of
+philosophic treatment.  Further than that, the comparison is vital to
+the main argument of this essay.  It provides the clue to the heart of
+our subject.  The scientist, who wishes to understand a botanical
+specimen, pays as much attention to what is in the ground as to what is
+above ground.  The seed and roots are as full of scientific interest as
+are stem, leaf and flower.  Similarly, to understand the monophysite
+heresy, to be able to detect it and expose it, we must take it in the
+germ.  We may push the illustration further.  The properties of a
+botanical specimen are best studied in connection with organisms of
+allied species.  We cannot isolate unless we compare.  By comparison
+the essential features, functions and properties of the specimen under
+examination are elucidated.
+
+It is by isolating the three germinal ideas of these three
+Christological systems and comparing them, that a full comprehension of
+monophysitism in all its stages, from seed to flower, is reached.  We
+have used this method, and have found that the roots of the heresy lie
+in spiritual monism.  In subsequent chapters we shall analyse its
+origins as a historical system, its specific tenets and its practical
+consequences.  It will then be seen that the spirit of monism pervades
+the whole system.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER II
+
+THE ORIGINS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+
+The monophysitism of the fifth century had its roots in the past as
+well as in the _a priori_.  In the previous chapter we treated it as a
+phase of philosophic thought and reviewed the metaphysic on which the
+heresy rests.  In the present chapter its relations as a historical
+system of religious thought are to be exhibited.  As such, it owes much
+to outside influences.  Much in the monophysite mode of thought and
+many of its specific doctrines can be traced either to other
+ecclesiastical heresies or to pagan philosophies.  The fact of this
+double derivation deserves to be emphasised.  It refutes the charge of
+inquisitorial bigotry, so frequently levelled against the theologians
+of the early centuries.  The non-Christian affinities of the heresy
+account for the bitterness of the controversy to which it gave rise,
+and, in large measure, excuse the intolerance shown by both parties.
+Heresies were not domestic quarrels.  Contemporaries viewed them as
+involving a life and death struggle between believers and unbelievers.
+Christianity can afford to be tolerant to-day.  It has an assured
+position.  Its tenets are defined.  Christians can almost always
+distinguish at a glance errors that threaten the essentials of the
+Faith from those that do not.  In the fourth and fifth centuries the
+case was otherwise.  Christianity was then one among many conflicting
+systems of religion.  Its intellectual bases were as yet only
+imperfectly thought out.  Any doctrinal error seemed capable of
+poisoning the whole body of belief.  Heresy, so the orthodox held, was
+of the devil.  No charitable view of it was allowable.  That
+uncompromising attitude was, to a large extent, justified because many
+articles of the heretical creeds were of purely pagan origin.  Given
+similar conditions to-day, our easy tolerance of opinion would
+disappear.  If Islam, for instance, were to-day a serious menace to the
+Faith, Christians would automatically stiffen their attitude towards
+monophysite doctrines.  Toleration of the false Christology would,
+under those circumstances, be treason to the true.  The Church of the
+fifth century was menaced from many sides.  Monophysitism was the foe
+at her gates.  That heresy was not a variety of Christianity.  It was a
+semi-pagan theosophy, a product of Greek and oriental, as well as of
+purely Christian speculation; therefore it was anathema to the orthodox.
+
+
+
+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 character.  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 problem.
+
+The two primitive forms of doctrinal error, to which the Church, even
+in apostolic days, was exposed, were docetism and ebionitism.  These
+are the elemental heresies.  All the later Christological heresies are
+refinements of one or other of these two.  They constitute the extremes
+of Christological thought: between them runs the _via media_ of
+orthodoxy.  Each of the two sees but one aspect of the two-fold life of
+Christ.  Docetism lays an exclusive emphasis on His real divinity,
+ebionitism on His real humanity.  Each mistakes a half truth for a
+whole truth.
+
+The docetists denied that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh.  His
+body, they taught, was an apparition.  He ate and drank, but the
+physical frame received no sustenance.  He appeared to suffer, but felt
+no pain.  The reality behind the semblance was the divine spirit-being,
+who conjured up the illusion in order to elevate the thoughts of
+mankind.  This docetic theory commended itself to many of the Greek
+Christians.  They were familiar with the notion of "the gods coming
+down to them in the likeness of men."  Greek mythology abounds in
+instances of docetic incarnations.  The gods of the popular religion
+constantly assumed visible form during their temporary manifestations.
+
+The ebionites threatened the Faith from the opposite quarter.  They
+taught that Christ was real man and only man.  According to them, the
+whole value of His life and work lay in His moral teaching and His
+noble example; there is no mystery, no contact of divine and human in
+Christ; what He attained, we all may attain.  The ebionites were
+recruited from the Jewish element in the Church.  The rigid monotheism
+of the Jews made it hard for them to conceive an intermediary between
+God and man; they were naturally disposed to embrace a humanistic
+explanation of Christ.
+
+Docetism was elaborated by Valentinus, Manes and other gnostics and
+adopted into their systems, while ebionitism provided the basis for the
+Christologies of Paul of Samosata, of the Photinians and Adoptionists.
+In contact with these heresies orthodox beliefs, originally fluid,
+gradually hardened.  The dogma "Christus deus et homo" had from the
+beginning been held in the Church.  Its full implications were not
+realised and formulated until the conflict with error came.  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
+humanity.
+
+
+
+THE PROBLEM OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION
+
+The manner of the hypostatic union then became an urgent problem.  The
+Church of the fifth century was called upon to attempt a solution.  Any
+reading of the Gospels compelled the recognition of divine and human
+elements in Christ; but speculative theology found it difficult to
+reconcile that fact with the equally important fact of the unity of
+person.
+
+The theologians of the previous century had bequeathed little or no
+guidance.  The fifth-century Christologians were pioneers in an
+unmapped region.  Athanasius' great treatises on the incarnation are
+hardly more than eloquent defences of the true deity and true humanity
+of Christ.  They contain little or no constructive Christology.  Their
+theme is, _autos enenthropesen_, _hina hemeis theopoiethomen_.  He
+maintains the fact, but does not deal with the "how."  He uses the
+phrase "natural union" (_henosis physike_), but does not attempt to
+define the mode of that union.
+
+
+
+APOLLINARIANISM
+
+Apollinaris was, as far as we know, the first theologian to approach
+this subject.  We may note in passing that, though he was bishop of
+Laodicea in Syria, Alexandria was his native place.  His father was an
+Alexandrian, and he himself had been a friend of Athanasius.  The fact
+of his connection with Alexandria deserves mention, because his
+doctrine reflects the ideas of the Alexandrian school of thought, not
+those of the Syrian.  Apollinaris set himself to attack the heretical
+view that there were two "Sons"--one before all time, the divine Logos,
+and one after the incarnation, Jesus Christ.  In doing so he felt
+constrained to formulate a theory of the union of natures.  He started
+from the Platonic division of human nature into three parts, rational
+soul, animal soul, and body.  He argued that in the statement "the
+Logos became flesh," "flesh" must mean animal soul and body.  He urged
+in proof that it would be absurd to suppose the Logos conditioned by
+human reason; that rational soul was the seat of personality, and that
+if it were associated with the Logos, it would be impossible to avoid
+recognising "two Sons."  He expressly asserted that the humanity of
+Christ was incomplete, contending that this very defect in the human
+nature made possible the unity of His person.  According to
+Apollinaris, then, the union was a composition.  The Logos superseded
+the human reason, and was thus united to body and animal soul.
+
+Apollinarianism was a form of docetism.  In ascribing imperfection to
+the human nature of Christ it _eo ipso_ denied its reality.
+Apollinaris, in fact, said of Christ's reason what the early docetists
+said of His body.  The system is more ingenious than convincing.  It is
+highly artificial.  It provides no intellectual basis for a living
+faith in an incarnate Christ.  The theory, however, was very
+influential in its day, and was intimately connected with the rise of
+monophysitism.  Eutyches, the "father of the monophysites," was
+condemned by a local synod at Constantinople in A.D. 448 on the ground
+that he was "affected by the heresy of Valentinus and Apollinaris."[1]
+Harnack goes so far as to say that "the whole position of the later
+monophysites, thought out to all its conceivable conclusions, is
+already to be found in Apollinaris."  Apollinarianism was condemned at
+the second general council, and there the Church made her first
+declaration, a negative one, on the subject of the hypostatic union.
+In conflict with the heresies which arose in the next two generations,
+she evolved a positive statement of the truth.
+
+
+
+THE NESTORIAN REACTION
+
+Opposition to Apollinarianism gave rise to the Nestorian heresy.  The
+original ebionitism had died away, but its spirit and central doctrine
+reappeared in Nestorianism.  Nestorianism might be described as
+ebionitism conforming to the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople.  The
+leaders of the opposition to the Apollinarists of the fifth century
+were their own Syrian countrymen whose headquarters was at Antioch.
+The Antiochians differed from the Apollinarians in the starting-point
+of their Christology and in the controlling motive of their thought.
+While Apollinaris had constructed his Christology on the basis of the
+doctrine of the Trinity, the Antiochians started from the formula
+"perfect alike in deity and humanity."  The reasonings of Apollinaris
+were governed by the thought of redemption.  The fundamental question
+of religion for him was, "How can the closest union between divine and
+human be secured?"  The tendency of the Antiochians, on the other hand,
+was to neglect the interests of Soteriology and to emphasize the
+ethical aspect of Christ's life and teaching.  They put in the
+background the idea of the all-creating, all-sustaining Logos, who took
+man's nature upon Him and in His person deified humanity.  Their
+thought centred on the historic Christ, the Christ of the evangelists.
+They did not revert to crude ebionitism, but they explained the Nicene
+creed from an ebionitic stand-point.  They maintained as against the
+Apollinarians the completeness of Christ's human nature; with equal
+vigour they maintained the essential deity of the Logos.  The "poverty"
+(ebionitism) of their doctrines consisted in their paltry view of the
+hypostatic union.  The union, according to the Nestorians, was
+subsequent to the conception of Jesus.  It was not a personal, but a
+moral union.  It was a conjunction of two co-ordinate entities.  They
+taught that the more the man Jesus acted in accordance with the divine
+promptings, the closer became his union with the Logos.  That is to
+say, the union was relative not absolute.  Thus the union between
+divine and human in Christ differed only in degree from the union of
+the same elements in any good man.  The unity of the Son of God and the
+Son of Mary consisted solely in the identity of name, honour and
+worship.
+
+
+
+CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA
+
+Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, led the opposition to Nestorius.  He
+declared that the moment of conception was the moment of the union, and
+that the notion of incarnation involved much more than an association
+of natures.  He maintained that the incarnation was a hypostatic union
+(_henosis physike_).  He endeavoured to guard against an Apollinarian
+interpretation of his teaching; but in this attempt he was not
+altogether successful.  He asserted the perfection of Christ's humanity
+and the distinction between the two natures.  The perfection, however,
+is compromised, and the distinction rendered purely ideal by his
+further statement that there were "two natures before, but only one
+after the union."  He cited in proof the words of Athanasius, "one
+incarnate nature of God the Word."
+
+Cyril prevailed.  Nestorius was condemned and the Antiochian school
+discredited.  Cyril's victory, however, was of doubtful value to
+orthodoxy.  His ardent but unbalanced utterances bequeathed to the
+Church a legacy of strife.  His writings, particularly the earlier
+ones, furnished the monophysites with an armoury of weapons.  His
+teaching could not with justice be styled docetic or Apollinarian, but
+its mystic tone was so pronounced that it proved a propaedeutic for
+monophysitism.  The shibboleth of orthodoxy, quoted above, "one
+incarnate nature of God the Word," passed rapidly into the watchword of
+heresy.  Athanasius had used the word "nature" in a broad sense.  The
+monophysites narrowed it down to its later technical meaning.  Thus
+they exalted Christ into a region beyond the ken of mortal man.  The
+incarnation became a mystery pure and simple, unintelligible, calling
+for blind acceptance.  The monophysites, following Cyril, heightened
+the mystery, but, in doing so, they eliminated the reality and the
+human appeal of the incarnate life.  They soon began to argue that,
+since Christ is monophysite, the properties of deity and humanity in
+Him are interchangeable; that therefore, while yet a Babe in the
+manger, He ruled the world with the omniscience and omnipresence of the
+Logos; that while He hanged upon the Cross, His mighty power sustained
+and ordered the universe.  The monophysites professed great jealousy
+for the honour due to the Redeemer.  But the ascription of such
+attributes to Jesus Christ detracts from His honour.  If the nature
+that suffered on the Cross be not distinct from the nature that cannot
+suffer, then the Crucifixion was a sham.  Monophysitism is docetism
+elaborated.  It abandons the Christ of history.  It rules out His
+_prokope_.  It ignores a fact, vital to Christology, namely the
+_kenosis_ or divine self-limitation.  Thus it throws a veil of
+unreality over those facts on which the Christian Faith is built.
+
+
+
+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 currents.  A
+man's convictions are settled for him partly by acceptance, partly by
+rejection of what tradition offers or his mind evolves.  The mass mind
+works similarly.  It accepts and rejects, approves and disallows.  The
+stabilisation of a body of mass opinions, such as a heresy, is thus
+determined by opposite forces.  It was so with monophysitism.  Its
+Christian antecedents comprised positive and negative currents.  The
+positive current was docetism, the negative ebionitism.  Docetism,
+originating in apostolic times, passed through many phases, to provide,
+at the end of the fourth century, in its most refined form,
+Apollinarianism, the immediate positive cause of monophysitism.
+Ebionitism, related to docetism as realism to idealism, possessed equal
+vitality and equal adaptability.  It showed itself in various
+humanistic interpretations of Christ.  Of these the most elaborate was
+Nestorianism, which exerted the most insistent and immediate negative
+influence on the early growth of monophysitism.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM AND NON-CHRISTIAN THOUGHT
+
+We leave here the subject of the influence of other heresies on
+monophysitism, and proceed to exhibit its affinities with non-Christian
+thought.  At Alexandria, the home of the heresy, two systems of
+philosophy, the Aristotelian and the Neo-Platonist, were strongly
+represented.  Both of these philosophies exercised a profound influence
+upon the origins and upon the later developments of monophysite
+doctrine.  We propose to take, first, the Aristotelian, and then the
+Neo-Platonist philosophy, elucidating those leading ideas in each on
+which the monophysite thinker would naturally fasten, as lending
+intellectual support to his religious views.
+
+
+
+THE ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC
+
+Aristotle was held in high estimation by the monophysite leaders,
+particularly in the sixth and seventh centuries.  His works were
+translated into Syriac in the Jacobite schools.  The West owes much to
+these translations.  For it was largely by this agency that his
+metaphysic reached the Arabs, who transmitted it to the West in the
+Middle Ages.
+
+The Aristotelian logic was widely known among the monophysites.  It
+seems to have formed part of their educational curriculum.  Taken apart
+from the rest of the system, the logic produces a type of mind that
+revels in subtle argumentation.  It exalts the form of thought at the
+expense of the matter.  It had this effect on the monophysite
+theologians.  They were trained dialecticians.  They were noted for
+their controversial powers, for their constant appeal to definition,
+for the mechanical precision of their arguments.  These mental
+qualities, excellent in themselves, do not conduce to sound theology.
+Formal logic effects clarity of thought often at the expense of depth.
+It treats thoughts as things.  Procedure, that is proper in the sphere
+of logic, is out of place in psychology and theology.  Concepts such as
+person and nature must be kept fluid, if they are not to mislead.  If
+they are made into hard and fast ideas, into sharply defined
+abstractions, they will be taken to represent discrete psychic
+entities, external to one another as numbers are.  The elusive, Protean
+character of the inter-penetrating realities behind them will be lost
+to view.  The most signal defect of monophysite method is its
+unquestioning submission to the Aristotelian law of contradiction.  The
+intellectual training that makes men acute logicians disqualifies them
+for dealing with the living subject.  The monophysite Christologians
+were subtle dialecticians, but the psychology of Christ's being lay
+outside their competence.
+
+
+
+ARISTOTLE'S CRITICISM OF DUALISM--A WEAPON IN THE HANDS OF THE
+MONOPHYSITES
+
+Leaving the formal element in Aristotle's system, we come to its
+material content.  Some of the prominent ideas of the Aristotelian
+cosmology and psychology reappear in the heresy we are studying.  We
+shall take first the rejection of the Platonic dualism.  Aristotle's
+repeated criticism of his master's theory of ideas is not merely
+destructive.  It formed the starting-point for his own metaphysic.  The
+ideas, he says, simply duplicate the world of existent things.  They do
+not create things or move them; they do not explain genesis or process;
+they merely co-exist with the ideates.  The participation which Plato's
+later theory postulated is inadequate.  A more intimate relation is
+required.  The theory of ideas confronts God with a world, and leaves
+the relation between them unformulated and inexplicable.
+
+This criticism is of first importance for theology.  Faith as well as
+reason demands a real relation between idea and ideate.  The Christian
+student in the fifth century, familiar with Aristotle's criticism of
+Plato, would inevitably apply it in Christology.  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 ideas.  The Nestorian formula, in effect, juxtaposed the ideal
+Christ and the real Jesus, and left the two unrelated.  This was
+Platonism in Christology.  Aristotle's attack on Plato's system
+provided a radical criticism of Nestorianism.  The monophysite
+theologians were blind to the difference between the Nestorian position
+and that of the orthodox.  They saw that Aristotle had placed a
+powerful weapon in their hands, and they used it indifferently against
+both opposing parties.
+
+
+
+ARISTOTLE'S PSYCHOLOGY
+
+We turn now to Aristotle's psychology.  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 defect.  It is a
+radical defect, namely, the almost complete absence of the conception
+of personality.  The principle of Aristotle's psychology, like that of
+his metaphysic, is the concept of form and matter.  The soul of man
+comes under the general ontological law.  All existence is divisible
+into grades, the lower grade being the matter whose form is constituted
+by the next highest grade.  Thus there is a graduated scale of being,
+starting from pure matter and rising to pure form.  The inorganic is
+matter for the vegetable kingdom, the vegetable kingdom for the animal
+kingdom; the nutritive process is material for the sensitive, and the
+sensitive for the cognitive.  Man is an epitome of these processes.
+The various parts of his nature are arranged in an ascending scale;
+form is the only cohesive force.  The animal soul is the form of the
+body, born with it, growing with it, dying with it; the two are one in
+the closest union conceivable.  Besides the soul of the body, there is,
+says Aristotle, a soul of the soul.  This is reason, essentially
+different from animal and sensitive soul.  It is not connected with
+organic function.  It is pure intellectual principle.  It is
+immaterial, immortal, the divine element in man.  This reason is not a
+bare unity.  As it appears in human experience, it is not full-grown.
+Potentially it contains all the categories, but the potentiality must
+be actualised.  Consequently reason subdivides into active and passive
+intellect.  The action of the former on the latter, and the response of
+the latter to the former, constitute the development of the mind, the
+education of the truth that is potentially present from the beginning.
+
+This hierarchy of immaterial entities contains nothing corresponding to
+our idea of personality.  There is in it no principle that is both
+individual and immortal.  Aristotle allows immortality only to the
+universal reason.  The psychic elements are condemned to perish with
+the body.  There is no hope for the parts of the soul which are most
+intimately connected with the individual's experience.
+
+Monophysite Christology shares this fundamental defect.  The
+monophysite thinker attempted to express the union of two natures
+within one experience.  But his psychology, not containing the notion
+of personality, could furnish no principle of synthesis.  An agent in
+the background of life, to combine the multiplicity of experience, is a
+_sine qua non_ of a sound Christology.  Personality was to the
+monophysites a _terra incognita_; and it was in large measure their
+devotion to Aristotle's system that made them deaf to the teaching of
+the catholic church.
+
+
+
+INTELLECTUALISM AND MYSTICISM COMPLEMENTARY SYSTEMS
+
+After this sketch of the Aristotelian features recognisable in
+monophysitism, we turn to the other great pagan philosophy that
+assisted in the shaping of the heresy.  Intellectualism and mysticism
+are closely allied; the two are complementary; they are as mutually
+dependent as are head and heart.  It is not then surprising that
+monophysitism should possess the characteristics of both these schools
+of thought.  The intellectualism of the heresy was largely due, as we
+have shown, to the Aristotelian logic and metaphysic; its mystic
+elements derive, as we proceed to indicate, from Neo-Platonism and
+kindred theosophies.
+
+Alexandria had been for centuries the home of the mystics.  The
+geographical position, as well as the political circumstances of its
+foundation, destined that city to be the meeting-place of West and
+East.  There the wisdom of the Orient met and fought and fused with
+that of the Occident.  There Philo taught, and bequeathed to the
+Neo-Platonists much of his Pythagorean system.  There flourished for a
+while and died fantastic eclectic creeds, pagan theosophies
+masquerading as Christianity.  Gnosticism was a typical product of the
+city.  Valentinus and Basilides and the other gnostics made in that
+cosmopolitan atmosphere their attempts to reconcile Christianity with
+Greek and oriental thought.  There Ammonius Saccas, after his lapse
+from the Christian faith, taught and laid the foundation of
+Neo-Platonism.  Plotinus was the greatest of his disciples, and, though
+he taught at Rome for most of his life, it was in the spirit of
+Alexandria that he wrought his absolute philosophy, the full-orbed
+splendour of the setting sun of Greek thought.  Neo-Platonism did not
+die with Plotinus.  In the middle of the fifth century, when
+monophysitism was at its zenith, Proclus was fashioning an intellectual
+machinery to express the Plotinian system.  The story of Hypatia
+evidences the dominant position of Neo-Platonism in Alexandrian
+culture.  The violence of Cyril's measures against her shows what a
+menace to the Church that philosophy was.  Cyril was not a monophysite,
+but much that he said and did promoted their cause.  Dioscurus, his
+nephew and successor in the see of Alexandria, championed monophysitism
+at the council of Chalcedon.  In later generations Alexandria always
+offered an asylum to exiled monophysite leaders.
+
+These facts render it impossible to regard the connection between
+Alexandria and monophysitism as fortuitous.  They further suggest that
+Neo-Platonism was the connecting link.  Such in fact it was.
+Monophysitism, we might almost say, was Neo-Platonism in Christian
+dress.  The ethos of the two systems is the same, and the doctrinal
+resemblance is marked.  It was natural that the home of pagan mysticism
+should cradle the kindred system of heretical Christian mysticism.
+
+
+
+NEO-PLATONIST ONTOLOGY
+
+The representative figure amongst the Neo-Platonists is Plotinus.  His
+comprehensive mind gathered up the main threads of Alexandrian thought,
+and wove them into the fabric of a vast speculative system.  The system
+is as much a religion as a philosophy.  It is the triumph of
+uncompromising monism.  The last traces of dualism have been
+eradicated.  God, for Plotinus, is true being and the only being.  He
+is all and in all.  God is an impersonal Trinity, comprising the One,
+the cosmic reason and the cosmic soul.  The One is primal, ineffable,
+behind and beyond all human experience.  All we know of Him is that He
+is the source and union of reason and soul.  Creation is effected by a
+continuous series of emanations from God.  Emanation is not an
+arbitrary act of divine will; it is a necessary consequence of the
+nature of the One.  God must negate Himself, and the process is
+creation.  The further the process of negation is carried, the less
+reality does the created object possess.  Last in the scale comes
+matter, which has no self-subsistence, but is the absolute
+self-negation of God.  We referred in the last chapter to Plotinus'
+favourite illustration.  We may be allowed, perhaps, to repeat it here.
+As light, he says, issues from the sun and grows gradually dimmer,
+until it passes by imperceptible degrees into the dark, so reason
+emanates from God and, passing through the phases of nature, loses its
+essence gradually in its procession, until finally it is derationalised
+and becomes its opposite.
+
+
+
+NEO-PLATONIST PSYCHOLOGY
+
+Human souls are at an intermediate stage of this cosmic process.  Like
+the ray of light which touches both sun and earth, they have contact
+with God and with matter.  They stand midway in creation.  They are
+attracted upwards and downwards.  Reason draws them to God; sense
+chains them to earth.  Their position decides their duty.  (Here the
+philosophy becomes a religion).  The duty of man is to break the
+sensuous chains and set the soul free to return to its home in God.
+This return of the soul to God is attained by the path of knowledge.
+The knowledge that frees is not speculative; for such enhances
+self-consciousness.  It is immediate consciousness indistinguishable
+from unconsciousness.  It is intuitive knowledge.  It is vision in
+which the seer loses himself, and what sees is the same as what is
+seen.  It is the absorption of the soul in the world reason, and so
+with God.
+
+The Neo-Platonist took practical steps to attain this mystic state.  He
+submitted to rule and discipline.  By mortification of the flesh he
+endeavoured to weaken sensuous desire.  The arts of theurgy were
+employed to wean the mind from sensuous knowledge, and to fix
+aspiration on unseen realities.  Contemplation and self-hypnotism were
+widely practised.  In ecstasy the mystic found a foretaste of that
+blissful loss of being, which is the goal and crown of philosophic
+thought.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM AND NEO-PLATONISM
+
+When we compare monophysitism with the system of Plotinus, several
+points of resemblance appear.  There is first the impersonal character
+of the deity.  Monophysitism was not a Trinitarian heresy, and the
+Catholic doctrine of the three persons in the godhead was the official
+creed of the heretical church.  But their theologians refrained from
+laying emphasis upon the distinct personalities of Father, Son and Holy
+Ghost.  Their sympathies were Sabellian to the core, and Sabellian
+heresies were constantly recurring within their communion.  The
+impersonal Trinity, such as Plotinus taught, was thoroughly in keeping
+with their Christology.  They lacked a clear conception of personality
+in the second Person of the Trinity.  It was inevitable that they
+should overlook the same element in the incarnate Christ.
+
+The Neo-Platonic view of matter finds its counterpart in monophysite
+theory.  The monophysites, without formally denying its real existence,
+nursed a Manichean suspicion of it.  It was, to them, the seat of
+illusion; it was an obstacle to spirit, the enemy of spiritual
+development.  If not unreal, it was at any rate unworthy.  The
+association of Christ with matter through His body and through His
+human nature was, in their eyes, a degradation of deity.  That Christ
+took matter up into His being as a permanent element, that He dignified
+the body and glorified human faculties, these facts seemed to the
+monophysite mind improbable, and, if true, devoid of religious
+significance.  It came natural to him to explain Christ's body as a
+phantom.  He was prepared to regard the human nature as unsubstantial.
+The mystic's view of matter, of sense and human existence characterises
+the whole monophysite outlook.
+
+In the spirit of Plotinus the monophysites conceived the incarnation as
+the supreme example of the _unio mystica_.  The _unio mystica_ was a
+state of rapture, abnormal and temporary in earthly experience, in
+which the identity of the mystic was actually merged in the cosmic
+reason.  The lower nature disappeared completely into the higher.  It
+was absorption.  This word "absorption" was in common use among the
+heretics.  It was a trite saying among the first generation of the
+monophysites that "the human nature of Christ was absorbed in the
+divine, as a drop of honey in the ocean."  They conceived His thought
+as lost in the universal reason, His will as surrendered to the will of
+God, His human affections as fused in the fire of divine feeling, His
+body as a phantom.  They could not admit that He lived the real life of
+a real man.  They could not see the value of such a life.
+Neo-Platonism had paralysed their optic nerve.  Thinkers such as the
+Christologians of Alexandria, imbued with the spirit of Neo-Platonism,
+had no motive for preserving the distinct subsistence of Christ's human
+nature.  It was their boast that their Ideal had faced and overcome and
+trampled on the lower elements of His being.  He was a proof from fact
+that body and sense and all that is distinctively human could be
+sublimated into the universal substance, which is the primary effluence
+of the Plotinian One.  In a word, the incarnate Christ was, to them,
+the personification of the Neo-Platonist _unio mystica_.
+
+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 life.  Neo-Platonism was a religion.  Its speculative aspect was
+subordinate to its practical.  A knowledge of the soul's position in
+creation and of its destiny laid the philosopher under strict
+obligation.  Fasting and self-denial were essential preliminaries to
+the higher mystic practices.  Ecstasy could not be reached until body
+and sense had been starved into complete submission.  Monophysitism
+adopted this tradition, and made ascesis the central duty of the
+Christian life.  The monophysite church became celebrated for the
+length and rigidity of its fasts.  The monastic element dominated its
+communion.  Indeed, it is hardly too much to say that the monophysite
+movement, on its external side, was an attempt to capture the Church
+for monastic principles.  The heresy drew its inspiration from the
+cloister.  The Christ of the monophysites had withdrawn from the market
+to the wilderness; so His followers must needs go out of the world to
+follow in His steps.
+
+
+
+[1] Harnack, "History of Dogma," vol. iv. chap. ii. p. 160.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER III
+
+MONOPHYSITE DOCTRINE
+
+The distinctive doctrine of monophysitism, that from which the name of
+the heresy is taken, is the assertion that there is but one nature, the
+divine nature, in Christ.  There existed some difference of opinion
+among the monophysites as to whether any degree of reality might be
+ascribed to the human nature.  Some were prepared to allow it
+conceptual reality; they would grant that Christ had been diphysite
+momentarily, that He was "out of two natures."  But that admission is
+quite inadequate.  It amounts to no more than the paltry concession
+that Christ's human nature before the incarnation is conceivable as a
+separate entity.  All monophysites united in condemning the diphysite
+doctrine that after the incarnation Christ was and is "in two natures."
+Such a Christ they would not worship.  It was "the image with two faces
+that the Council of Chalcedon had set up."[1]  They adopted the
+Athanasian phrase, "One incarnate nature of God the Word," as their
+battle-cry.
+
+Monophysitism can make out a strong _prima facie_ case.  It is
+attractive at first sight.  The heretical formula seems simpler and
+more natural than the catholic.  The unity of nature appears a
+corollary of the unity of person.  Human personality is ordinarily
+assumed to be monophysite; so it is natural to make the same assumption
+as to divine personality.  The simplicity of the doctrine is, however,
+all on the surface.  It will not bear examination.  As a definition of
+Christian faith it is useless.  It cannot account for the recorded
+facts of Christ's life.  The facts of His body, of His mind, of His
+sufferings refuse to fit into it.  It affords no foundation for belief
+in His transcendent work.  No intelligible doctrine of redemption can
+be built upon it.  It contains no germ of hope for mankind.  Therefore
+the Church in the name of Christ and on behalf of humanity rejected it.
+
+Although the heresy has been officially condemned, it should none the
+less be studied.  It is improbable that any one in our time will defend
+the formula, or openly profess the doctrines that follow from it.  But,
+though not recognised as such, it is an ever-present and instant menace
+to the Faith.  Monophysite tendencies are inherent in religious
+thought.  The metaphysical idea, on which it rests, still has a
+powerful hold over the human mind.  Spiritually-minded men are
+especially liable to this form of error.  It is a mistake to think that
+Christological questions were settled once and for all in the fifth
+century.  Each generation has to settle them afresh.  Accordingly, to
+exhibit the consequences of the monophysite formula, to show how wrong
+abstract ideas develop into wrong concrete ideas and falsify Christian
+practice, is a task of practical and present-day importance.
+
+
+
+CLASSIFICATION OF MONOPHYSITE ERRORS
+
+Two classes of erroneous beliefs result from a misconception of the
+relation between God and man in Christ.  There arise, on the one hand,
+false opinions about the deity of Christ, and on the other, false
+opinions as to His manhood.  We shall adopt this classification as we
+investigate the doctrinal consequences of the monophysite formula.  It
+is the method followed in one of the earliest systematic criticisms of
+the heresy.  Leo's Tome, or letter to Flavian, contains a lucid
+statement of the catholic doctrine of the incarnation, and an acute
+analysis of the system of Eutyches, the heresiarch.  He summarises the
+errors of Eutyches under two heads; there are two main counts in his
+indictment of the heresy.  Eutyches, he contends, makes Jesus Christ
+"deus passibilis et homo falsus."  Eutyches and his followers
+compromised both deity and humanity.  The deity becomes passible, the
+humanity unreal.  All the monophysite misbeliefs can be classified
+under one or other of these two heads.
+
+
+
+THE CONCEPT "IMPASSIBILITY" AS APPLIED TO DEITY
+
+We shall take first those errors that compromise the nature of the
+deity, and shall preface our analysis by an explanation of the meaning
+of the term "deus impassibilis."  The impassibility of God is the
+corner-stone of spiritual monotheism.  Christianity owes it, as a
+philosophic doctrine, largely to Aristotle.  He conceived deity as
+"actus purus," as the One who moves without being moved, a "causa sui."
+The popular gods of Greece were passible; they were possible objects of
+sense; they were acted on largely as man is acted on.  They had a
+beginning, and were subject to many of the processes of time.  They
+were swayed by human motives.  They were, at times, angry, afraid,
+unsatisfied, ambitious, jealous.  Aristotle gave to the world the
+conception of a transcendent God, a being who is real and yet is
+"without body, parts and passions," who cannot receive idolatrous
+worship, and is not an object of sense.  Impassibility was one of the
+highest attributes of this being.  The attribute does not involve or
+imply absence of feeling.  Originally it had no reference to feeling,
+in the psychological sense of that word.  It certainly excludes
+incidentally the lower, specifically human feelings, feelings caused by
+external stimuli, feelings due to want or to lack of power.  It does
+not exclude the higher affections from the deity.  Even in the _noesis
+noeseos_ of Aristotle, there is room for the transcendent bliss of
+divine self-contemplation.  Much more in the Christian God is there
+room for spontaneous feeling, springing from His own nature, the
+necessary concomitant of thought and will.  Impassibility is a
+comprehensive attribute.  Originally negative, it soon acquired a rich
+positive connotation.  An impassible God is one who is outside space
+and time.  The attribute connotes creative power, eternity, infinity,
+permanence.  A passible God is corruptible, _i.e._ susceptible to the
+processes of becoming, change, and decay.  If to-day theists have to be
+on their guard against debased conceptions of deity, in the plausible
+garb of an "invisible king," of a finite or suffering God, much more
+was such caution necessary in the early centuries of the Christian era.
+Christians who came daily and hourly into contact with polytheistic
+beliefs and practices had to be very jealous for the concept of
+impassibility.  It represented to them all that was distinctive in the
+highest region of their Faith.
+
+Monophysitism, as we proceed to show, compromised this article of the
+Faith.  Its adherents did not, perhaps, do so intentionally.  In fact,
+the first generation of monophysites maintained that their definition
+safeguarded the impassibility.  It was zeal for the honour of the Son
+of God that induced them to deny Him all contact with humanity.  Their
+good intentions, however, could not permanently counteract the evil
+inherent in their system.  In later generations the evil came to the
+surface.  Theopaschitism, the doctrine that openly denies the
+impassibility of the godhead, flourished in the monophysite churches.
+
+
+
+MONISM ENTAILS A DEBASED CONCEPTION OF DEITY
+
+The metaphysical basis of monophysitism made this result inevitable.
+Extremes meet.  Extreme spirituality readily passes into its opposite.
+It cuts the ground from under its own feet.  It soars beyond its
+powers, and falls into the mire of materialism.  Illustrations of this
+fact can be found in the history of philosophy.  The Stoics, for
+instance, contrived to be both pantheists and materialists.  Coming
+nearer to our own time, we find Hegelianism explained in diametrically
+opposite ways.  After Hegel's death his disciples split into opposing
+camps; one party maintained that the real was spirit, the other that it
+was matter.  Each party claimed the authority of the master for their
+view.  The divergence is easy to explain.  From spiritual monism it is
+a short step to materialistic monism.  For the monist, all is on one
+level of being.  He may by constant effort keep that level high.  But
+gravity will act.  We are more prone to degrade God to our level, than
+to rise to His.  The same truth can be put _in abstracto_.  Unless the
+relation between God and the world be preserved as a true relation, the
+higher term will sooner or later fall to the level of the lower, and be
+lost in it.  This rule holds as well in movements of religious thought.
+The monophysite strove for a lofty conception of deity but achieved a
+low one.  He undermined the doctrine of impassibility by the very
+measures he took to secure it.
+
+In the technical language of Christology the monophysites' debased
+conception of deity was a consequence of "confounding the natures."
+Attributes and actions, belonging properly only to Christ's humanity,
+were ascribed recklessly to His divinity.  The test phrase "theotokos,"
+invaluable as a protest against Nestorianism, became a precedent for
+all sorts of doctrinal extravagancies.  The famous addition to the
+Trisagion, "who wast crucified for us," which for a time won
+recognition as sound and catholic, was first made by the monophysite
+Bishop of Antioch.[2]  Both these phrases have scriptural authority,
+and they are justified by the _communicatio idiomatum_.  But they are
+liable to misuse and misinterpretation.  All depended on how they were
+said and who said them.  The monophysite meant one thing by them, the
+catholic another.  The _arriere pensee_ of the monophysite gave them a
+wrong turn.  He was always on the look-out for paradox in Christ's
+life.  He emphasised such phrases as appeared to detract from the
+reality of His human experiences.  He spoke of Christ as "ruling the
+universe when He lay in the manger," or as "directing the affairs of
+nations from the Cross."  The catholic can approve these phrases; in
+the mouth of a monophysite they have a heretical sound.  They suggest a
+passible God; they degrade the infinite to the level of the finite.
+The monophysite confounds the natures, and so he has no right to appeal
+to the _communicatio idiomatum_.  Unless the _idiomata_ are admitted as
+such, unless they are preserved in their distinctness, there can be no
+_communicatio_ between them.  If they are fused, they cannot act and
+react upon each other.  The monophysite, by identifying the natures,
+forfeits the right to use the term "Theotokos" and the Trisagion
+addition.  On his lips their inevitable implication is a finite
+suffering God.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
+
+Monophysitism was not originally or _per se_ a Trinitarian heresy.
+Equally with catholics and Nestorians its adherents accepted the Nicene
+definition.  They professed to believe in one God in three co-equal
+persons.  This belief, firmly held in all that it involves, would have
+kept them from attributing passibility to the Godhead, and ultimately
+have neutralised the errors of their Christology.  But their
+Christology corrupted their theology.  Abandoning all vital relation
+between God and man in Christ, they abandoned the relation in the
+Godhead.  The internal and external relations of the Godhead are
+mutually dependent.  If there be no trinity of persons, the incarnation
+is impossible.  Were God a bare monad, He could not impart Himself and
+remain Himself.  The fact that there are related persons in the deity
+is the only justification for the use of the phrases discussed in the
+previous paragraph.  When the catholic says, "God was born, suffered,
+died," he is right, because his presupposition is right.  When the
+monophysite uses the same words, he is wrong, because his
+presupposition is wrong.  The catholic preserves in the background of
+his thought the distinction between the _ousia_ and the threefold
+_hypostasis_, between the essential godhead and the three persons.  So
+he is in no danger of ascribing passion to the essence or to the
+persons of Father or Holy Spirit.  When he says "God was born," he is
+compressing two statements into one.  He means "Christ was born, and
+Christ was God."  Not in respect of what He has in common with the
+other persons of the Trinity, but in respect of His property of sonship
+did He lower Himself to the plane of suffering.  The catholic holds not
+a suffering God, but a suffering divine person.  He maintains an
+impassible God, but a passible Christ.  A dead God is a contradiction
+in terms; a Christ who died is the hope of humanity.
+
+Monophysite theology became involved in further embarrassments.
+Unwillingness to attribute passibility to God, coupled with the desire
+to remain in some sort trinitarians, forced many of the monophysites
+into the Sabellian position.  Deity, they said in effect, did not
+suffer in the second person of the trinity, because there is no such
+person.  The persons of the trinity are simply characters assumed by
+the monadic essence, or aspects under which men view it.  On this
+showing, the Logos, who was incarnate, had no personal subsistence.
+The relation between God and man ever remains impersonal.  Christ,
+_qua_ divine, was only an aspect or effluence of deity.  This, for the
+monophysite, was the one alternative to the doctrine of a passible God.
+He was faced with a desperate dilemma.  If he retained his belief in a
+transcendent God, he must surrender belief in a triune God.  He could
+choose between the two; but his Christology permitted no third choice.
+For him, the only alternative to a finite God was a lone God.  As a
+result monophysite theology oscillated between denial of the
+impassibility of God and denial of his three-fold personality.  In
+either case the orthodox doctrine of the godhead was abandoned.
+
+One of the stock questions propounded by the catholics to the
+monophysites was, "Was the trinity incomplete when the Son of God was
+on earth?"  The question is crudely expressed, as it ignores the type
+of existence proper to spiritual personality; but it contains a
+sufficiently sound _ad hominem_ argument.  The monophysite could not
+say "yes," or he would then be driven to assert a passible God.  If he
+said "no," his reply was tantamount to the assertion that the whole
+essence of the Godhead was incarnate.  The logic of this dilemma was so
+cogent that not a few monophysites succumbed to it, and adopted a
+position similar to that of the earlier Patripassianists.  These
+seceded from the monophysite church, and founded an independent sect,
+called the Theopaschites.  As often happens, the sect is, doctrinally,
+more representative than the parent body.  The Theopaschites were the
+thinkers who had the courage to push the monophysite doctrines to their
+logical conclusions.  Those who did not secede, unable to defend their
+own doctrinal position, retaliated with the counter-charge of
+tetratheism.  This stroke was simply a confession of weakness.  Monism
+was strangling their Christianity at every turn.  Instead of breaking
+free from it, they pretended that their opponents were polytheists.
+The catholic, however, was neither monist nor pluralist.  The
+incarnation was not the addition of a fourth divine being to the
+trinity.  The essence of the godhead remained complete, unchanged and
+impassible; 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 God.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM AND ISLAM--SABELLIANISM THE CONNECTING LINK
+
+It is in place here to point out the somewhat intimate connection that
+existed between monophysitism and Islam.  The monophysites held the
+outposts of the Empire.  Mahomet came into contact with them, and it
+was probably from them that he formed his conception of Christian
+doctrine.  The later history of the monophysite churches shows that
+they often secured a large measure of toleration at the hands of the
+Caliphs, while the diphysites were being rigorously persecuted.  Lapses
+to Islam were not infrequent, and in some periods apostasy on a large
+scale occurred.  Cases are on record even of monophysite patriarchs who
+abjured their faith and joined the followers of the Prophet.  The
+connection between monophysitism and Islam was not fortuitous.  There
+was a doctrinal affinity between them.  Both systems were rigidly
+monotheistic.  Both degraded the notion of deity by a perverse attempt
+to exalt it.  Both cut redemption and mediation out of their religion.
+
+The family likeness between the two systems does not extend beyond the
+realm of the doctrine of supreme deity.  In other respects the religion
+of the sword and the religion of love have little or nothing in common.
+Crescent and Cross are poles asunder.  The monophysites as a body
+remained nominally and in intention Christians and trinitarians.  But
+in the doctrinal area specified the resemblance holds.  It could hardly
+be otherwise.  Sabellian tendencies were always present and powerful in
+the monophysite communion, and Sabellianism is a long step in the
+direction of Islam.  Sabellius taught in effect, "Allah is one."  The
+three persons, for him, were only aspects of the one indivisible deity.
+There are no distinct entities corresponding to the names of Father,
+Son and Holy Spirit.  Sabellianism is intimately associated with monism
+in all its phases.  Monophysitism being essentially monist could not
+escape the taint.  Whether Sabellianism made the heretics monophysites,
+or monophysitism made them Sabellians, we need not inquire.  The two
+creeds are bound up in the same bundle by the tie of monism.  The
+relation of the Son to the Father and the relation of the Son to
+humanity are vitally connected.  Misconception of the one relation
+entails misconception of the other.  Denial of relation in the godhead
+goes hand in hand with denial of relation in Christ.  If the theologian
+reduces the latter to bare unity, he does the same for the former.
+Catholic Christology is thus a necessary deduction from trinitarian
+dogma.  Nicaea necessitated Chalcedon.  To safeguard the distinction of
+persons in the godhead, a distinction in the natures of Christ was
+essential.  To preserve intact the latter distinction, the proprium of
+the Son and His personal subsistence had to be kept distinct from the
+proprium and subsistence of the Father.
+
+
+
+THE CHRISTOLOGICAL ERRORS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+
+We leave here the area of theology and come to that of Christology.  We
+have exhibited the monophysite errors with respect to the doctrine of
+primal deity; we now proceed to analyse their views with respect to the
+incarnate Christ.  The former subject leads the thinker into deep
+water; the layman is out of his depth in it; so it does not furnish
+material for a popular controversy.  It is otherwise with the latter
+subject.  Here the issue is narrowed to a point.  It becomes a question
+of fact, namely, "Was Christ a real man?"  The question and most of the
+answers given to it are readily intelligible, and they naturally gave
+rise to heated controversy.  Theopaschitism is, as we have shown, a
+tendency inherent in the heresy, but one slow to come to the surface,
+and one easily counter-acted and suppressed by the personal piety of
+the monophysite.  Its docetism, the assertion of the unreality of
+Christ's human nature, lies on the surface.  No amount of personal
+piety can neutralise it.  It has had, and still has, a crippling effect
+on the faith of devout Christians.  Even where it is not carried to the
+length of formal heresy, it spreads a haze of unreality over the gospel
+story, and dulls the edge of belief.
+
+The second count of Leo's charge against the monophysites was, it will
+be remembered, that their presentation of Christ made Him "homo
+falsus."  Under this heading "homo falsus" may be classed a wide group
+of erroneous tenets, ranging from the crudities of early docetism to
+the subtleties of Apollinarianism.  We propose to sketch those of major
+importance.  No attempt will be made to take them in their historical
+order or historical setting.  Further, it is not implied that they all
+formed part of the official doctrine of the monophysite church.  The
+standard of belief in that communion was constantly varying, and the
+history of its dogma would need a work to itself.  We shall deal with
+those Christological errors, which, whether part of the official
+monophysite creed or not, are logical results of the monophysite
+formula.
+
+Unreality may be predicated of Christ's human nature as a whole, or in
+respect of its parts.  Consubstantiality with humanity may be denied of
+the whole of his human nature; or deficiency in one or other of the
+essential constituents of human nature may be alleged.  We shall deal
+first with those errors that concern the entire nature, coming later to
+the errors in respect of one or more of its several parts.
+
+Suspicion of the reality of Christ's human nature as a whole is
+characteristic of all monophysite thought.  This suspicion, not always
+formulated or expressed, is everywhere present.  If the monophysites
+admitted the fact of His true manhood, they denied or neglected the
+religious value of that fact.  Their spurious spirituality rebelled
+against a dogma which seemed to tie the infinite down to a point in
+history.  The fact that the Son of God lived a perfect human life
+contained no inspiration for them.  They idealised the incarnation.  It
+was not for them a historical event.  This is a corollary to the
+proposition, maintained by their great champion, Philoxenus, that "no
+addition to His person took place."  It is tantamount to saying that
+the union of divine and human in Christ is purely conceptual.  When the
+monophysite faced the question, "What change in Christ did the
+incarnation effect?" his formula constrained him to reply, "It made no
+change."  The deity of the person was not denied.  The pre-existent
+Logos and the Christ who walked in Galilee were admittedly one and the
+same.  The second person of the trinity and Jesus of Nazareth were one
+personality.  If Bethlehem made no change in that personality, it was
+purposeless, and the import of the incarnation disappears.
+
+
+
+THE MONOPHYSITE THEORY OF A COMPOSITION OF NATURES
+
+For the consistent monophysites, then, the human nature, as a psychic
+entity with peculiar properties, did not survive the incarnation.  They
+did, however, allow it a verbal reality.  They admitted a composition
+of natures, and this composition provided for them whatever degree of
+reality the incarnation possessed.  On this point their Christology
+passed through several stages of development, the later stages showing
+progressive improvement on the earlier.  They distinguished three
+senses of the word "composition."  First, they said, it might mean
+"absorption," as when a drop of water is absorbed in a jar of wine.
+Second, it might imply the transmutation of constituent particles, as
+when a third unlike thing is formed from two.  Thirdly, there is
+composition when, from the association of two whole and entire things,
+a third whole and entire compound thing is formed without loss to the
+components.  They illustrated the third mode of composition by the
+union in man of soul and body.  The pre-Eutychian monophysites regarded
+the hypostatic union as a composition in the first sense of the word.
+They spoke of Christ's human nature as absorbed in the divine, as is "a
+drop of vinegar in the ocean."  Eutyches adopted the term in its second
+sense.  He taught that the Word became flesh[3] "as the atmosphere
+assumes bodily form and becomes rain or snow under the influence of the
+wind, and as water becomes ice by reason of the cold air."  Philoxenus
+in a later generation saw that both these positions were wrong and the
+similes misleading.  He taught a hypostatic union totally devoid of
+confusion or loss or commutation of the elements of the two natures.
+To illustrate his meaning he used the simile supplied by the
+"Athanasian" creed, "as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so
+God and Man is one Christ."  This position is a vast improvement on
+that of the original monophysites.  It was ground gained to secure the
+admission that in any sense Christ was very man.  But the monophysites
+never learned the true manner of the union, namely, that Christ was
+"one; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the
+Manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of Substance but by
+unity of Person."
+
+Read in this connection the assertion that God and man is one Christ,
+"as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man," is orthodox; read apart
+from this context, it is ambiguous.  If the simile be kept as a simile,
+as a mere suggestion or hint as to how, in general, two may compose one
+and yet remain two, then no exception can be taken to it.  If, however,
+the clause be interpreted as a proportion sum, assigning corresponding
+values to the different terms, then it savours strongly of
+Apollinarianism.  Most monophysites, like many moderns, probably
+understood it in the mathematical sense.  Christ, they argued, was God
+and man, just as man is rational soul and body; the terms are in
+proportion; therefore the divine nature was the rational soul, and the
+human nature was the body.  They forgot that the free act of the whole
+divine person in assuming man underlies the union and makes it
+efficacious; they gave _sarx_; the narrow meaning of _soma_, they set
+before themselves the picture, not of the infinite robing in the
+finite, but of the union of mind and matter.  Consequently they
+habitually spoke of the Logos, as assuming, not man or a human nature,
+but a body.
+
+Such in its varying phases was the monophysite doctrine of composition.
+At its worst, it contained a direct denial of the real humanity of
+Christ.  At its best, it falls far short of the catholic doctrine of
+His real, perfect and complete humanity.  The permanent assumption of
+human nature into the transcendent personality had no meaning for the
+heretic party.  If it had taken place, it was, they thought, merely
+momentary, with no after-effects, the passing of a summer cloud across
+the face of the sun.
+
+We have considered the monophysites' view of Christ's human nature,
+regarded as an integral psychic entity.  It is evident that they either
+undervalued it or denied its existence.  The more consistent thinkers
+of their party maintained that the incarnation had made no difference
+in the being of Christ, and that therefore His human nature had no
+objective reality.  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 Christ, that its net result was a composition.
+Further analysis showed that this concession was rendered nugatory;
+that in whatever sense the word "composition" was taken, it was
+inadequate to express the hypostatic union; that the composition proved
+in its first significance illusory, in its second, hybridous, in its
+third, Apollinarianist.  We pass on now to review the human nature in
+its constituent parts, and it will be seen that the heretical formula
+undermines faith in respect of each several part.
+
+
+
+THE "PARTS" OF HUMAN NATURE
+
+From the standpoint of psychology human nature is divisible into parts.
+The division must not be taken as absolute; for the whole is a unity,
+and the parts are not discrete _quanta_.  The division is rather a
+classification of psychic states according to predominating features.
+The classification corresponds, however, to the facts of experience,
+and so psychology is justified in making use of it.  We shall adopt it
+in our investigation of the psychology of Christ.  The sharpest
+dividing line is that between immaterial and material, between soul and
+body.  The states of the soul fall into three well-marked groups,
+thought, will, and feeling.  The physical and the psychic are not
+always distinguishable.  Still more uncertain and tentative is the
+identification in the psychic of cognitive, volitional, and emotional
+faculties.  But in every man these parts are found.  They are
+constituents of human nature.  There may be other elements as yet
+unanalysed; but there can be no complete humanity that is deficient in
+respect of any of these parts.  We propose to take them singly in the
+above order, to show their existence in the historic Christ, and to
+expose the monophysite attempts to explain them away.
+
+
+
+CHRIST'S BODY
+
+It is obvious to an unprejudiced reader of the gospels that Christ's
+pre-resurrection body was real and normal.  It was an organism of flesh
+and blood, of the same constitution and structure as ours.  It occupied
+space, and was ordinarily subject to the laws of space.  It was visible
+and tangible.  It shared the natural processes of birth, growth, and
+metabolism.  At the resurrection a catastrophic change took place in
+it.  It was still a body.  It was still Christ's body.  Continuity was
+preserved.  The evidences of continuity were external, and so strong as
+to convince doubters.  We cannot fathom either the change or the
+continuity.  What we know is that after the resurrection the body was
+not so subject as before to the laws of space.  It was, it would seem,
+of finer atoms and subtler texture.  It had reached the height of
+physical being, and development apparently had ceased.  It was the
+entelechy of the human body.  It was still real, though no longer
+normal.  To employ paradox, it was natural of the species
+"supernatural."  It was the natural body raised to a higher power.  It
+was natural to human denizens of a higher world.  Body's function is
+two-fold.  It both limits the soul and expresses it.  It narrows the
+activity of the person to a point, and thus serves as a fine instrument
+for action upon matter.  At the same time it draws out the
+potentialities of the soul and fixes its development.  The
+post-resurrection body was apparently less limitative and more
+expressive.
+
+The foregoing considerations may be summed up in the form of three
+dogmata, all of which orthodox Christianity teaches.  These are, first,
+that Christ's pre-resurrection body was real and natural; second, that
+His resurrected and ascended body is real and supernatural; third, that
+there was a real continuity, whether by development or by epigenesis
+between the two.  In all these points the monophysites missed the
+truth.  Their presuppositions misled them.  As monists they were
+inclined to regard matter as sinful.  They could not conceive the
+infinite donning a soiled robe.  "Our body with its hateful wants"
+could not, they thought, be a tabernacle for the Logos.  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
+thinking.
+
+Since such was the background of their thought it was inevitable that
+definitely heretical doctrines should result.  In the first place we
+meet the flat denial of the reality of Christ's body.  Even in
+apostolic days those who held this heresy were found.  They denied that
+Christ had come in the flesh.  They were styled docetists or
+phantasiasts.  According to them the body had no objective reality.  It
+was a phantom.  Its reality was entirely subjective.  It was the effect
+produced on the perceptions of those who associated with the mysterious
+spirit-being.  The Logos, as viewed by the phantasiasts, at the
+incarnation struck His being into the bounds of time, but not of space.
+Divine personality, they thought, did not require and could not use a
+material medium.  This doctrine was not part of the official
+monophysite creed; but, as pointed out in the previous chapter,
+monophysitism was a lineal descendant of docetism, and always showed
+traces of its lineage.  The saying that, "Christ brought His body from
+heaven," was commonly attributed to Eutyches.  He denied having said
+it, but, at any rate, the general feeling of his followers was that
+Christ's physical nature was divine and therefore not consubstantial
+with ours.
+
+Such doctrines destroy the discipline of faith in the resurrection.
+The radical difference between the natural and the resurrection body is
+blurred by them.  The immense change is abolished.  The resurrection
+becomes purely a spiritual change, which even a non-Christian could
+accept.  The body, according to the tenor of monophysite teaching, was
+spirit before the resurrection and spirit after it.  Thus the ascension
+too becomes purely spiritual.  It is shorn of half its significance.
+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 heaven,
+namely, a glorified human body.  If He brought that body with Him from
+heaven, the main significance of His human dispensation falls to the
+ground.  The incarnation becomes unreal, illusory, impotent.
+
+An offshoot of docetism that flourished among the monophysites is the
+aphthartodocetic heresy.  This is of considerable historical
+importance.  Large numbers of the Syrian and Egyptian monophysites
+embraced it, and seceded from the parent church.  It became part of the
+official creed of Armenian Christianity, and that church has not
+repudiated it to this day.  There are good, though hardly conclusive,
+grounds for holding that the emperor Justinian, profound theologian and
+life-long champion of orthodoxy, was converted to the heretical theory
+in the last few months of his life.[4]  Aphthartodocetism, affirming
+the reality of Christ's body, denies that it was subject to the wear
+and tear of life.  The body, as this heresy taught, was superior to
+natural process; it was neither corrupted nor corruptible.  The term
+"corruptibility" has the wide significance of organic process, that is
+the lot of all created living things.  A milder form of the heresy
+asserted that Christ's body was corruptible but was not corrupted.
+Aphthartodocetism springs from a spurious spirituality, from a
+fastidiousness that has no place in true religion.  It is symptomatic
+of Manicheanism, which associates matter with sin.  Christians affirm
+sinlessness of Christ's humanity; they do not affirm immateriality of
+His body.  The monophysites, in abandoning the true Christology, were
+predisposed to the infection of this heresy.  A being in whom organic
+process was present seemed to these heretics no fit object of worship.
+They called the orthodox Ctistolatrae or Phthartolatrae, worshippers of
+the created or corruptible.
+
+Monophysites of all shades of opinion united in condemning the practice
+of worshipping Christ's human nature.  That practice was in their eyes
+both idle and injurious; idle, because the human nature did not exist
+as a separate entity; injurious, because it fixed the mind of the
+worshipper on the finite.  In consequence they were much opposed to all
+observances based on a belief in His humanity.  Images or other
+representations of Him in human form seemed to them idolatrous.  The
+monophysite church was not directly concerned in the iconoclastic
+controversy, but their doctrines were indirectly responsible for it.
+In fact the great monophysites, Severus and Philoxenus, have been
+styled "the fathers of the iconoclasts."
+
+
+
+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 body.  Difficulties
+equally great and errors equally fatal attended their attempt to
+conceive the conjunction of psychic elements with the divine person.
+Their formula was too narrow.  It compelled them to shut their eyes to
+one outstanding fact, namely, the duality of Christ's earthly
+experience.  This fact confronts the reader on every page of the
+gospels.  The duality is deep-seated; it extends to each psychic
+element, yet stops short of the personality.  In the world of Christ's
+nature there are two hemispheres.  His experiences are on two planes.
+In both of these hemispheres or planes we find thought, will, and
+feeling.  His thought on the higher plane is radically different in
+mode and scope from His thought on the lower plane.  The two are of a
+different order.  The same difference holds with respect to the other
+two psychic elements.  We propose to exemplify this assertion, first,
+in the case of cognition, and then in the case of will and feeling.
+This procedure will simplify the task of exposing the further
+consequences of the monophysite Christology.
+
+
+
+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 psychology.  We find in
+Christ two cognitive faculties with two dominant universes of thought
+and knowledge.  On occasions He speaks and acts as if He read at a
+glance all the secrets of nature and the human heart, as if all time
+past, present, and future was an open book to him, as if He were in the
+counsels of the Most High.  On those occasions divine intuition
+superseded in Him the slow and faulty methods of human intelligence;
+thought was vision, intellect intuition, knowledge omniscience.  Thus
+His divine nature cognised and knew.  That, however, is only one half
+of the picture.  On other occasions his mind appears to have been
+perfectly human.  His intelligence and perceptive faculties differed
+not essentially from ours.  He asked questions and sought information.
+He used human categories.  He progressed in wisdom.  The development of
+His mind was gradual.  His knowledge was relative to His age and
+surroundings.  Memory and obliviscence, those complementary and perhaps
+constituent elements of soul-being, attention, sensation, recognition,
+and discursive reasoning, all these exhibitions of the workings of the
+normal mind appeared in Christ.  In this manner His human nature
+cognised and knew.
+
+
+
+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 life.  On the theoretical side, they confirm the central
+dogma of orthodox Christology.  On the practical side, they give him
+authority for seeking Christ's sympathy in matters intellectual.  He
+realises that since Christ understands the education of the mind and
+can share his intellectual difficulties, there is hope for the
+redemption and regeneration of the highest part of his nature.  The
+monophysite finds neither support for his dogma, nor inspiration for
+life, in the fact that Christ had a human mind.  He is blind to the
+fact.  He has seen half the picture and regards it as the whole.  His
+ideal is a being in whom intuition supersedes intellect, whose
+knowledge is immediate, absolute, and complete.  The orthodox who held
+that Christ had and, at ordinary times, used a human reason, perfect of
+its kind, but still human in all the implications of the word, were in
+his eyes Agnoetae; they were unbelievers who asserted the ignorance of
+Christ and set bounds to the vision and knowledge of the infinite.  The
+monophysite would modify his opinions and approach the catholic
+position on other doctrinal points, but never on this.  He might be
+persuaded to admit that Christ's body and "animal soul" were real and
+human, but to the consubstantiality of Christ's mind with man's he
+would not subscribe.  The Apollinarian strain in monophysitism was
+persistent.  The later monophysites never succeeded in banishing it
+from their system.  By Apollinarianism the humanity of Christ is
+crippled in its highest member.  It is a realm shorn of its fairest
+province.  According to Apollinaris, all that Christ assumed was an
+animated body.  His theory is like an ingenious system of canal locks
+for letting divine personality descend from the upper to the lower
+waters.  The ingenuity displayed in it condemns it.  It is an
+artificial makeshift.  The psychology on which it rests is antiquated.
+The picture of Christ it presents does not correspond to the recorded
+facts of His life.  Christ's human nature, as chiselled by the
+Apollinarian sculptor, is a torso.  Such an image fails to satisfy the
+demands of religious feeling, and the doctrines, Apollinarian and
+monophysite, that enshrine it are therefore valueless.
+
+
+
+TWO WILLS IN CHRIST
+
+We here leave the subject of cognition and pass to that of volition.
+Orthodoxy teaches that Christ had two wills.  This doctrine has a
+double basis.  In the first place, it is a corollary of the doctrine of
+two natures.  In the second, it is established by the recorded facts of
+the gospel narrative.  To take first the _a priori_ argument.  A nature
+without a will is inconceivable.  A cognitive faculty without the
+dynamic of the volitional would be a machine without driving force.
+The absurdity of the supposition, indeed, is not fully brought out by
+the simile.  For we can consider the machine at rest; it would then
+have existence and potential activity.  Will, however, is essential to
+the existence as well as to the activity of thought.  The connection
+between them is vital to both.  The psychologist distinguishes the
+respective parts each plays in life and marks off faculties to
+correspond to each.  But his distinction is only provisional.  The two
+develop _pari passu_, they are never separable; they act and re-act on
+one another.  Without some degree of attention there is no thought, not
+even perception of external objects.  Attention is as much an act of
+will as of thought.  Man does not first evolve ideas and then summon
+will to actuate them.  In the very formation of ideas will is present
+and active.  Accordingly from the duality of Christ's cognitive nature
+the psychologist would infer that He had two wills.  There is in Christ
+the divine will that controlled the forces of nature and could suspend
+their normal workings, the will that wrought miracle, the eternal will,
+infinite in scope and power, that was objectified in His age-long
+universal purpose, in a word, the will that undertook the superhuman
+task of cosmic reconstruction and achieved it.
+
+It is not easy for us to conceive the co-existence of two wills in one
+person.  The difficulty is part of the discipline of faith.  Christ's
+human will is no less a fact than His divine will.  The former played
+as large a part in His earthly experience as the latter.  It was
+present in all its normal phases, ranging from motor will to psychic
+resolve.  The lower forms of volition, motor impulse, desire and wish,
+the higher forms, deliberation, choice, purpose and resolve.  He shared
+them all with humanity.  There is in Him a human will, limited in
+scope, varying in intensity, developing with the growth of His human
+experience, a will like ours in everything, except that it was free
+from moral imperfection.  It was a finite will, inasmuch as the
+conditioning cognition was finite, perfect of its kind, adequate to its
+task, never faltering, yet of finite strength.  The two wills have each
+their own sphere.  They operate in perfect harmony.  Only at crises,
+such as the Agony, is there any appearance of discord.  The opposition
+there is only apparent.  The human will reaches its limit, and the
+superhuman will interposes to perform the superhuman task.
+
+The reality of the two wills, established for the orthodox both _a
+priori_ and by an appeal to fact, is denied by the monophysite.  He
+regards will as the fundamental psychic state and makes it an attribute
+of personality.  Two wills, he says, would necessitate two persons.  He
+does not see that personality lies deeper than will, and that will and
+cognition are co-ordinate attributes of nature.  If Christ had but one
+nature, it follows that He had but one will and operation.  The
+monophysite thinks of two wills as necessarily antagonistic, as are
+conflicting motives in man; so he sees no ethical value in dithelite
+doctrine.  As a matter of fact the moral influence of Christianity
+would be much weakened by an abandonment of the doctrine of two wills.
+The belief in Christ's human will prevents men from despairing of their
+will.  Human will cannot be wholly warped, or wholly misdirected, or
+utterly powerless, since Christ in His life has shown that it can work
+along the same lines as the divine will, that the two can co-operate,
+and that where the lower reaches its limit, the higher can step in and
+perfect the work.
+
+From the historian's point of view the monothelite controversy is quite
+distinct from the monophysite.  So we need only take a glance at it
+here.  It originated in an attempt to win back the monophysites to the
+orthodox communion by a doctrinal compromise.  The emperor Heraclius
+endeavoured to unite catholic and monophysite on the basis of the
+formula, "two natures with one will and operation."  That formula will
+not bear analysis, and the emperor's attempt to use it as an eirenicon
+was a complete failure.  Imperial pressure induced a few monophysites
+to modify their doctrine so far as to admit "one theandric operation;"
+but the concession of "one will" from the orthodox side failed to win
+from the monophysites the expected concession of "two natures."  The
+monophysites were quite consistent here.  To deny will of nature is an
+elementary mistake in psychology.  Only a tyro in introspection will
+ascribe will directly to personality.  A one-willed two-natured
+personality is little short of a psychological monstrosity.  An attempt
+to rally Christendom round such a figure was bound to fail.  The only
+lasting result of the emperor's activity was the formation of a new
+sect, the Maronites.
+
+
+
+THE DUALITY OF CHRIST'S EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE
+
+We come now to the third element in the human spirit.  It is only in
+modern psychology that feeling has secured recognition as a distinct
+constituent of man's nature; so it is not surprising that the question
+as to its position in the incarnate Christ was not raised in former
+days.  Now, however, the psychology of feeling has come into its own,
+and it has become important to consider whether in this particular,
+too, Christ shared our human experience.  Here, again, the argument for
+maintaining the duality of Christ's emotional experience is twofold.
+It follows, on the one hand, from the duality of the other parts of His
+nature; and, on the other hand, it is proved by the facts of His life
+as recorded in the gospels.
+
+Human nature involves feeling, and two natures involve two universes of
+feeling.  Divine personality cannot be conceived as devoid of feeling.
+With men feeling lies in the depths of being; it is the dynamic of
+life.  Feeling is the inner reflex of acts of thought and will.  It
+invariably accompanies cognition and volition.  If thought and will be
+attributed to the supreme being, the attribute of feeling cannot be
+left out.  When the God in Christ acted, divine feeling accompanied the
+act.
+
+This surmise is proved correct on reference to the records of His life.
+We find there two distinct emotional zones.  Christ has all the
+blameless feelings natural to man.  There are in Him the feelings
+accompanying sensation; physical pleasure and pain, hunger, thirst,
+weariness, and, in addition, the higher grades of feeling, aesthetic,
+sympathetic, and ethical.  He experienced wonder, surprise, righteous
+anger, the sublime, joy and love.  A life rich in emotion was the life
+of the Man Christ Jesus.  When, however, we look more closely into His
+experience, we catch glimpses of feeling such as no man could know.  We
+see there transcendent passion, great sorrow, great joy, so great that
+they would break a human heart.  We may instance the deep emotion
+accompanying His resolve to go to meet His fate at Jerusalem, the
+rejoicing in spirit at the success of the apostles' mission, His Agony
+and His universal love.
+
+The monophysites could not recognise this duality in Christ's emotional
+nature.  Hunger and thirst, and even the higher human feelings they
+considered derogatory to the Son of God.  Even when they admitted that
+He suffered, they threw a veil of mystery over His sufferings.  They
+idealised the Passion.  They made it seem as if His flesh was
+privileged, as if His omnipotence excused Him from the emotional
+experiences of humanity.
+
+
+
+SUMMARY OF THE CHAPTER
+
+We have examined the doctrine of one nature, and exposed its chief
+consequences.  We have considered its effects in respect of the deity
+of Christ and in respect of His manhood.  We have applied the doctrine
+to the human nature as a whole, and to the several parts that compose
+it.  The result of the examination may be summarised in brief.
+Monophysitism destroys what is divine in the deity and what is human in
+the humanity.  It offers to Christians a Christ who is not sufficiently
+above man to be able to help them by His power, nor sufficiently man to
+be able to help them by His sympathy.  The monophysite Christ is
+neither very God nor very man, but a composition in which all traces of
+the original entities are lost to view.
+
+
+
+[1] "The Chronicle of Zachariah of Mitylene," translated by Hamilton
+and Brooks, chap. iii. p. 46.
+
+[2] This addition to the Trisagion was officially condemned at the
+close of the 7th century owing to its monophysite associations.
+
+[3] "Chronicle of Zachariah of Mitylene," translated by Hamilton and
+Brooks, ii. 2, p. 21.
+
+[4] The question of Justinian's orthodoxy has been debated by Bury and
+Hutton.  See _Guardian_, March 4th and April 15th, 1896.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER IV
+
+THE ETHOS OF MONOPHYSITISM
+
+Monophysitism originated in a monastery.  Eutyches, "the father of the
+monophysites," was a monk.  The monastic temperament is peculiarly
+susceptible to this heresy, and the monastic element has always been
+dominant in the monophysite churches.  The cloister is the natural
+habitat of the doctrine of the one nature.  Monasticism is applied
+monism.  If the world's existence be a sham, if its value compared with
+God be negligible, it becomes a religious duty to avoid all influences
+that heighten the illusion of the world's real existence and intrinsic
+value.  The monist, like the monk, must renounce all secular interests
+and "go out of the world."  The path of renunciation had an additional
+claim on the Christological monist.  In his universal ideal, as
+manifested in time, the human elements were sublimated into the divine.
+Consequently his ideal of conduct imposed a negative attitude towards
+the world and a merging of his ego in the universal spirit.  These are
+the ruling elements in the spirit of the cloister, and these are the
+characteristics of the monophysite ethos.
+
+Those men, to whom God is the sum of all reality and the world merely a
+cosmic shadow, regard worship as the sole worthy activity of the human
+spirit.  In worship union with God is sought, a union so close that the
+personality of the worshipper is absorbed into the being of the
+worshipped.  His experience of God is so intimate that his experience
+of the world is reduced to insignificance.  As an overpowering human
+love welds two beings into one, and identifies their thoughts, wills,
+springs of action and even feelings, so the _amor dei_ identifies man
+with God and makes possible a deification of humanity.  Deeply
+religious natures in all ages have heard this mystic call.  To lose
+their ego in the divine spirit is the height of their religious
+ambition.  The conception is lofty, but it is not the Christian ideal
+of life and duty.
+
+Mysticism and monophysitism are twin systems.  Both are religious
+phases of pantheism.  As, to the intellect, acosmism is the corollary
+of pantheism, so, to the heart, asceticism follows from mysticism.
+Whether conceived in terms of existence or of value, the world for the
+mystic is an obstacle to the _unio mystica_.  It snares the mind
+through the senses and creates a fictitious -appearance of solid
+reality in sensuous objects.  It makes pretensions to goodness and
+attaches to itself a spurious value.  The only remedy is self-denial,
+denial of existence to the world, denial of credence to the senses,
+denial of gratification to the passions, desires, and inclinations.
+The monophysites were mystics.  They were the rigorists of the eastern
+church.  They formed the "no compromise" party.  They stood for a
+thorough-going renunciation of the world and the flesh.  Though they
+did not officially lay down the inherent evil of matter, Manicheanism
+is latent in their system.  They did not explicitly identify matter
+with the spirit of evil, but they had the spiritual man's suspicion of
+matter and his contempt for the body of the flesh.  Abstinence,
+mortification of the flesh, and all ascetic practices flourished in
+their communion.  Art and culture were suspect; they had no eye for
+natural beauty.  Some of their hymn-writers possessed considerable
+poetic taste; but poetry was discouraged by their leaders.  Several of
+the extant letters of Severus of Antioch show that that patriarch did
+his best to banish that art from his church.  His attitude may be
+gathered from the following quotation.[1]  "As to Martyrius, the poet,
+... I wish you to know that he is a trouble to me and a nuisance.
+Indeed in the case of the others also who follow the same profession,
+and were enrolled in the holy clergy of the Church that is with us, I
+have debarred them from practising such poetry; and I am taking much
+trouble to sever this theatrical pursuit from ecclesiastical gravity
+and modesty, 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
+fornication, and carrying them to bestial passions."  The result of
+this asceticism was a jaundiced and inhuman outlook on life.  There was
+much piety among the monophysites, but it was confined to a narrow
+channel.  Their zeal for purity of doctrine amounted to fanaticism;
+their hatred of the Nestorian and of the Melchite at times reached a
+white heat.  Toleration was almost unknown in their communion.
+
+The claims of humanity appeal less to a monophysite than to other
+Christians.  He places all life's values in the other world.  He has no
+motive for trying to ameliorate the lot of his fellow-men.  Social
+service has to him little or no divine sanction or religious value.  We
+are speaking only of general tendencies.  No follower of Christ,
+however perverted his views, could be totally indifferent to the
+welfare of other men; but it came natural to the monophysite to think
+that it does not matter much how a man lives in this world of shadows,
+provided he holds communion with the world of unseen realities.  The
+same motive accounts for the rapid decline of missionary activity in
+their communion.  The Nestorians were far more active propagandists.
+Worship is a very high type of service; but worship becomes selfish and
+sickens into sentiment, if it neglects the inspiring tonic of contact
+with human need.  The monophysite Christology encouraged that form of
+self-sacrifice, whose goal is Nirvana, which lapses lazily into the
+cosmic soul and loses itself there in contemplation and ecstasy.  It
+supplies no motive for that finer piety which manifests itself in
+ethical endeavour and practical philanthropy.  His Christ had not
+partaken of the cup of suffering.  His Christ's advance to human
+perfection was illusory.  So the monophysite could not look for the
+sympathy of Christ in his own struggles, nor could he appeal to
+Christ's example in respect of works of human charity.  Monophysitism
+considers only the religious nature of man, and takes no account of his
+other needs.  We must therefore characterise the system as unsocial,
+unlovely, unsympathetic.
+
+The uncompromising attitude of the individual monophysites was
+reflected in their ecclesiastical polity.  We cannot but admire their
+sturdy independence.  The monophysite church stood for freedom from
+state control.  Her principles were the traditional principles of the
+Alexandrian see.  Alexandria would not truckle to Constantinople, nor
+let religion subserve imperial policy.  She would allow the catholic
+party to be Melchites (King's men) and to reap all the temporal
+advantages accruing to the established church.  In this matter the
+monophysites took a narrow view; but their narrowness evinces their
+piety.  They felt the evils attendant on Constantine's grand
+settlement, and they made their ill-judged protest.  They made it for
+no unworthy motive.  There are always such thinkers in the church.  A
+spiritual enthusiast despises the outward dignity that the church gains
+from an alliance with the State, and is often blind to the spiritual
+benefits conferred on the nation by that alliance, while he
+concentrates his gaze on incidental evils.  To connect with Christology
+such an attitude towards the principle of Establishment may seem forced
+at first sight.  The connection, however, exists.  Independence of the
+temporal power is symptomatic with that unworldliness which, as we have
+shown above, characterises monophysitism.  Its adherents paid no
+respect to the human as such.  They attached no value to merely human
+institutions, and made no attempt to see or foster the divine that is
+in them.  The argument that because the State is a human institution it
+should have no voice in ecclesiastical policy is typically monophysite;
+it is the argument of one who could draw no inspiration from the human
+life of the Son of God.
+
+Mysticism and rationalism have much in common.  They both are elements
+in the mental composition of almost every serious thinker.  The
+sterility of logic often drives him to seek a higher and surer
+instrument of knowledge.  So there is no inconsistency in further
+characterising the monophysites as rationalists.  The intellectuals of
+the eastern church were found mostly in their communion.  Theirs was
+the formal logic point of view.  Christ, they urged, was one and not
+two; therefore His nature was one and not two.  They could not see that
+He was both.  In Bergsonian language, they used exclusively mechanical
+categories.  Intelligence, an instrument formed by contact with matter,
+destined for action upon matter, they used on a supra-material subject.
+Their thinkers were highly trained logicians; they revelled in abstract
+argument; theirs was a cold intellectual metaphysic, unwarmed by flesh
+and blood empiricism.
+
+Their narrow outlook on life, their religious zeal and their
+rationalist philosophy combined to produce in them sectarianism of an
+extreme type.  Party spirit ran high among them.  They fought the
+catholics; they fought the Nestorians; they fought one another.  The
+list of schisms that occurred in their communion is of amazing length.
+The letters of Severus of Antioch make sad reading.  They show us that
+the patriarch had constantly to interfere in cases of disputed
+succession to bishoprics.  At almost every vacancy in the provincial
+dioceses there were parties formed each with their own nominee, ready
+to schismatise if they could not secure recognition and consecration
+for him.  It is evident that monophysitism does not foster the
+generous, tolerant, humane virtues of Christianity.  It is the creed of
+monks, mystics, and intellectualists.
+
+
+
+[1] E. W. Brooks, "Select Letters of Severus of Antioch," vol. ii. pp.
+88, 89.
+
+
+
+
+CHAPTER V
+
+MONOPHYSITISM AND MODERN PSYCHOLOGY
+
+Christology divorced from empirical psychology is a barren science.
+Abstract discussions about person, nature and union of natures soon
+degenerate into logomachies.  If personality is a psychic entity, and
+nature another distinct psychic entity, then the question at issue
+between diphysite and monophysite is worth debating.  If they are
+concepts merely, the debate is hollow and of purely academic interest.
+A study of psychology clothes the dry bones with flesh.  It puts life
+and meaning into these abstractions.  It shows that they represent
+entities, that something corresponding to the terms "person" and
+"nature" is actually part of the being of every man, and that therefore
+their existence in Christ is a proper and practical subject for
+investigation.  In so doing psychology provides the _rationale_ of the
+Christological controversies.  It justifies the church in her
+determined adherence to the precise expression of the truth.  No
+Christian with powers of introspection, who can distinguish in his own
+being personality and nature, can be indifferent to the Christological
+problem.  The problem is one of fact, not theory.  The terms and the
+formula are only of importance as expressing or failing to express the
+true facts of Christ's being.  In a word, the psychology of the central
+figure of human history is the matter at issue.
+
+Reference to psychological fact is what one misses in the records of
+the old controversies.  The disputes read as if they were about
+shadows.  No doubt that was often the case.  Catholics and
+non-Catholics were often agreed as to the substance of belief, while
+owing to their devotion to words and formulae the agreement went
+unrecognised.  Had the disputants made clear to themselves and to each
+other what they meant by their abstract terms, had they translated them
+into their concrete psychological equivalents, heresy and schism would
+have been less frequent.  It was, however, almost impossible for them
+to do so, because in their day theology was far more highly developed
+than psychology.  Systematic observation of the workings of spirit was
+almost unknown.  There existed no science of psychology as we know it.
+No clear notions attached to the terms "person" and "nature."  They
+represented abstractions necessary to discursive reason rather than
+concrete psychic facts.  All parties shared this defect.  Among
+catholics and Nestorians as well as among monophysites knowledge of the
+constituents of human nature was of the most rudimentary character.
+The catholic party, however, by keeping close to the facts recorded in
+the gospels, achieved a Christological formula that is psychologically
+intelligible; while the heretical parties were led by their
+preconceived opinions to fashion a Christ, whose features are
+unrecognisable as God or man, a psychological monstrosity.
+
+
+
+BERGSON'S THEORIES THROW LIGHT ON CHRISTOLOGY
+
+Without claiming finality for the findings of modern psychology, we can
+consider some results of the science as established.  They are
+sufficiently well established, at any rate, to provide a starting-point
+for our investigation.  In particular the brilliant observations and
+theories of M. Bergson throw, so it seems to the writer, a flood of
+light on Christology.  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 fallacy.  These key
+doctrines are, first, the interpenetration of psychic states, and,
+second, the distinction between deep-seated and superficial
+consciousness.
+
+
+
+BERGSON'S THEORY OF THE INTERPENETRATION OF PSYCHIC STATES
+
+It is, says Bergson, characteristic of psychic states that they do not,
+like material things remain external to one another.  They
+inter-penetrate.  Cut up by human intelligence into discrete elements,
+in their own nature they remain a continuum.  States of mind appear
+successive and external to one another, because age-long association
+with matter has accustomed men to material modes of thought.  Man's
+intelligence is a by-product of activity.  For purposes of action it is
+the externality of things that matters.  The inner connection is
+relatively unimportant.  Men act with precision on matter, because
+perception cuts up the continuum of matter into bodies, defined bodies
+no two of which can occupy the same space.  Intelligence originating
+thus by contact with matter naturally prefers mechanical categories.
+These categories applicable to matter when applied to higher forms of
+existence mislead.  We naturally conceive psychic states as external to
+one another, and their interpenetration seems an abnormality.  At this
+stage of thought experience is pictured as a line of indefinite length,
+infinitely divisible, whose divisions correspond to the moments of
+consciousness.  This spatial picture of mind is misleading in many
+ways, not the least in that it can offer no reasonable theory of the
+subconscious.  Thinkers who materialise mental experience have no room
+in their theory for the sub-conscious.  It is for them bare
+non-consciousness, a psychic vacuum.  When, however, we start from this
+unique characteristic, that mind possesses, of remaining one and
+indivisible throughout the greatest appearance of diversity, the
+sub-conscious falls naturally into the scheme.  No part of our
+experience perishes.  It is essentially self-perpetuating memory.  The
+needs of action relegate the greater portion of it to the
+sub-conscious, but it is there, always linked to our conscious
+experience, and only awaiting the occasion to emerge into the full
+light of consciousness.  Past penetrates into the present.  One portion
+of our present penetrates into the other portions.  Conscious and
+unconscious, past and present, combine to form one wonderful whole.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM IGNORES THE DUALITY IN CHRIST'S EXPERIENCE
+
+Such in outline is Bergson's theory of the interpenetration of psychic
+states.  If this psychology be adopted, the abstract character of the
+catholic doctrine of Christ's being in large measure disappears.  It
+becomes easy to conceive the interpenetration of two natures in one
+Christ.  Further, the Bergsonian psychology furnishes a standpoint from
+which criticism of monophysitism is easy.  Psychology at the
+monophysite stage of thought conceives the moments of Christ's
+consciousness in their mutual externality; they follow each other as do
+the ticks of a clock.  They are discrete elements strung along on a
+hypothetical ego.  Christ's experience is conceived as unilinear.  All
+that He did, suffered and thought is regarded as having taken place on
+one and the same plane of experience.  This psychology has no room for
+another plane of experience.  It has no room for a positive
+sub-consciousness.  Consequently that one plane must be the one divine
+nature, which, as the monophysites taught, absorbed the human.
+
+The one-nature theory is not true to the facts.  It overlooks the
+complexity of Christ's experience.  His experiences lie on two
+different planes.  He has different universes of thought, different
+actuating wills and sets of feelings.  Christ is not in one nature.
+The phases of His consciousness are twofold.  His experiences fall
+naturally into two groups.  While one group is in consciousness, the
+other is below the level of consciousness.  Now the human experiences,
+now the divine, are uppermost.  Both are always present.  Life under
+such conditions is inconceivable, unless full recognition be accorded
+to the fact that conscious states interpermeate.  If each state fall
+outside the other, and consciousness be a chain of successive ideas or
+emotions, a twofold nature within the one experience is meaningless.
+The view of conscious states as discrete leads inevitably to
+determinism.  The place of one state in the chain is conditioned by its
+predecessor.  There is no room for the spontaneity and the creative
+power which characterise conscious life.  Associationism cannot
+countenance the unforeseen and incalculable.  So it is out of sympathy
+with Christian psychology.  A function of the divine in Christ is to
+introduce the element of the unforeseen and incalculable into His
+normal and human experience.  The Bergsonian psychology thus supplies
+an intellectual basis for belief in the possibility of two natures in
+Christ.  When ideas are regarded as psychic entities whose essential
+property is mutual penetration, the ground is prepared for the catholic
+formula.  Where this truth is not recognised, there arises inevitably
+the tendency to assert that Christ had and must have had but one
+uniform level of experience, and that assertion is the essence of
+monophysitism.
+
+
+
+BERGSON'S THEORY OF DEEP-SEATED AND SUPERFICIAL STATES
+
+Bergson's psychology throws further light on a central doctrine of
+catholic Christology.  It not only makes conceivable, as we have shown
+above, the co-existence of the two natures, but it lends support to the
+belief in the independent reality of His personality.  Person and
+nature of Christology find their modern equivalents in the Bergsonian
+"deep-seated" and "superficial" states of consciousness.  Bergson draws
+a sharp line of distinction between these two.  The deep-seated states
+constitute the kernel of being.  They are the man's existence turned
+inwards.  They are independent, free, creative.  They are a unifying
+force.  Always present, they only rarely make their presence felt.
+Only at moments of deep experience do they interfere with the surface
+self.  The superficial states form the outward-regarding existence of
+man.  They represent consciousness relaxed into moments of clock-time,
+moments more or less external to one another.  They are not truly free.
+They are conditioned by the material environment.  Whatever be thought
+of the metaphysic of this system, recognition cannot be refused to that
+part of it which rests on the solid foundation of psychological fact.
+Self-analysis discloses a two-fold experience in man.  The stream of
+his life contains both current and undercurrent.  The current is
+nature, the under-current personality.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM ANNULS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIVINE PERSON AND DIVINE
+NATURE
+
+This distinction is of paramount importance in Christology.  Diphysites
+hold fast to the distinction.  They maintain a human nature in Christ,
+but they do not humanise His person.  The person cannot be humanised.
+It remained divine after the incarnation, as it was before.  Though He
+became man, the depth of His being was unchanged.  The rain from heaven
+and the waters from the earthly spring mingle in one stream, but
+beneath the surface the deep undercurrent of being flows on unchanged.
+The monophysite in effect abandons this distinction.  This is where his
+psychology is most seriously at fault.  He confuses person and nature.
+Deep-seated and superficial states of soul are all one to him.  He does
+not see the duality in the being of his fellow-men; so he cannot see it
+in the ideal man.  This is a consequence of monophysitism which has not
+attracted the attention of theologians, and which the monophysite
+himself did not intend.  The doctrine that rules out the human nature
+of Christ rules out the divine nature also, by confusing it with the
+personality.  The monophysite affirms the divine nature while denying
+the human.  Such affirmation is purely verbal.  It is completely void
+of significance.  The contrast between the divine and human natures is
+needed to throw personality into relief.  Take away the human nature,
+and that contrast disappears, and with it goes the distinction between
+divine person and divine nature.  Then, instead of a transcendent
+personality in whose portrait divine and human features are distinctly
+limned, we have a blur.  Where God planned a unique though intelligible
+psychic harmony, we find a psychic medley.
+
+
+
+CONSCIOUSNESS OF PERSONALITY PRODUCED BY A VIOLENT CHANGE OF OCCUPATION
+
+This assertion is justified by an appeal to human experience.  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 others.  For instance, a sudden and violent change of
+occupation establishes personality as a distinct entity.  The civilian
+turns soldier.  Almost immediately all parts of his nature are
+affected.  He feels the development, as it were, of a second nature
+within him.  His faculties are transformed.  He enters a new universe
+of thought.  His range of knowledge narrows in one direction, widens in
+another.  His volitional nature is altered.  His will narrows in scope,
+but increases in intensity.  Nor does his emotional nature escape the
+change.  Aesthetic values are reversed.  He no longer feels pleasure
+and pain at the old objects.  Physical desires play a much larger part
+in his life, and he loses taste for intellectual pleasures.  The
+soldier returns to civilian life and, as it were, with his civilian
+attire he resumes his former nature, and all his old thoughts and
+feelings and impulses come flooding back.  Such an experience is of
+considerable psychological interest.  It exemplifies the
+interpenetration of different states of thought and activity.  The
+contrasts bring home to a man the fact that his spirit is a synthesis
+of heterogeneous elements.  They force him back on himself.  They rouse
+in him the dormant sense of personal being.  It is the apprehension of
+strong contrast in his experience of himself, the apprehension of the
+plurality of his being, that accentuates the deep-lying unity.  The
+more violent the change in the walks of life, the clearer becomes the
+concept of the continuity.  Civilian or soldier, the man, the person is
+the same.
+
+Personality is thrown into relief not only by change of occupation, but
+also by moral contrasts.  Conflicting passions, opposing motives and
+internal debate serve to make a man realise himself.  Strong
+personalities are often those in whom the conflict between good and
+evil is most acute.  It is the very opposition of natures which brings
+out the personal element into the full light of conscious recognition.
+
+We must now examine human personality in greater detail; we must
+indicate its functions and show how it differs from human nature.  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 monophysite.
+
+
+
+KANT AND THE DUAL CHARACTER OF THE EGO
+
+Kant distinguished the noumenal from the phenomenal ego.  The former he
+regarded as an idea, the latter as a reality in time.  The distinction
+corresponds roughly to that between person and nature.  The phenomenal
+ego is the nature of man.  It bears the brunt of the struggle of life.
+The noumenal ego is the transcendent personality of the individual--an
+idea which pure reason necessarily forms and which practical reason
+establishes.  Though the Kantian philosophy no longer carries
+conviction, it is interesting to see that Kant felt and admitted a
+double current in man's being.  He recognised that the superficial self
+is not the true being of the man.  It is not necessary, however, to go
+as far as Kant went.  We need not with him relegate the core of
+personal being to the realm of idea.  Granted that personality is not
+part of our normal experience as nature is, there are times when the
+depths of being are stirred.  Moments of crisis drive a man deeper than
+will and thought and even feeling, and make him conscious of himself as
+a psychic unity, permanent and of infinite value.  Personality normally
+remains in the recesses of the subconscious.  It is the hidden basis of
+life.  It is active, though its activities are for the most part
+underground.  It does not, however, lie altogether outside the ken of
+consciousness.  It may be experienced; it is experienced when great
+emotion rends the surface fabric of the man and discloses the true self.
+
+
+
+HUMAN PERSONALITY AND HUMAN NATURE
+
+What is human personality?  It is a psychic entity whose most important
+function is to unify the parts of a man's nature.  It is the principle
+of unity and the instrument of unity.  A man's thought, will and
+feeling are distinct and real entities.  His intelligence takes various
+forms from perception to abstract thought; it may be directed to
+outward things, to thoughts of things, or to pure idea.  He wills many
+things, and wills them in different modes and with varying degrees of
+intensity.  A wide range of feeling is found in him, from physical to
+mental, from organic to ideal feeling.  His nature is tripartite.  Each
+part admits of variation in itself and in its interaction with the
+other parts.  Each of the three expresses the man at the moment.  No
+one of the three gives the whole account of his being.  Nor do the
+three taken together.  Though his nature is tripartite the man himself
+cannot be resolved into component parts.  He has his faculties and
+states, but he is more than their sum.  He may lose himself in thought
+or activity, or abandon himself to feeling, but when he is fulfilling
+his true function, when he is most himself, all parts of his nature are
+concentrated to a point.  Partial activity of thought, will, or feeling
+is then replaced by activity of the personality.  Personality is the
+synthetic unity of all parts of a man's nature.  It has the wonderful
+power of compressing to a point a medley of psychic elements.  Moods
+and memories, perceptions and ideas, wishes and purposes, it tensions
+them all up, merges them and expresses them in characteristic acts
+representative of the man.
+
+Personality differs from nature also in respect of relation to
+environment.  It is relatively independent of circumstances.  Habit and
+education mould the nature, but if they touch the person they do so
+only indirectly.  The nature must be deeply affected before a change in
+the person is registered.  Personality is not synonomous with inherited
+disposition; but it bears a similar relation to nature as inherited
+disposition does to acquired habit.  It is to nature what character is
+to action.  It is to nature what in Weismann's theory the germ plasm is
+to the somatic cell.  Changes in it are mediated by nature and are
+almost imperceptible in a life time.
+
+Again, nature is the superficies of the soul.  It is the part that
+comes in contact with the world of things and people.  A man's nature
+is what he is for other people; what he is in and for himself alone is
+personality.  There is a substance or self-existence of the psychic
+states.  Thought, will and feeling have all and each an external
+reference.  The internal reference of the whole is the core of being.
+Our perception of personality in other people is a subtle thing.  In
+the ordinary give and take of life we are not aware of it.  It is when
+we realise the subject as a self-existent unity that we recognise
+personality.  We judge a man's nature by his thought or will or
+feelings as conveyed through the ordinary channels of communication.
+Personality is felt.  It is a magnetism that influences, but remains
+inarticulate.
+
+Person and nature differ also in respect of relation to the body.  The
+co-existence of heterogeneous natures in the same body is a fact of
+experience.  Different universes of thought, different levels of will
+and feeling can be lodged in one organism.  The higher the development
+of the individual, the more clearly marked is the duality or plurality
+of nature.  It is otherwise with personality.  In normal cases no two
+personalities can tenant the one body.  The unity of the organism is
+the outward expression and guarantee of the unity of the person.  There
+are of course pathological cases which form exceptions to this rule.
+Such cases, however, only serve to emphasise the distinction between
+person and nature.  In cases of dual personality the occupancy of the
+one body is not simultaneous.  Jekyll alternates with Hyde.  Dual
+personality is a totally different phenomenon from duality of nature.
+Duality of nature is relatively superficial.  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 entity.
+
+Personality then is the synthetic principle in man's being.  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
+experience.  The student of Christology welcomes this account of
+personality, but he requires more.  He seeks a parallel for the union
+of two whole and perfect natures.  He demands some reason for holding
+the central dogma of the incarnation to be intelligible and probable.
+The next step in the argument accordingly is to ask, "Why limit the
+synthetic power of personality?"  If personality can synthesise parts
+of a nature, why should it not also synthesise natures?  If human
+personality can unify such heterogeneous psychic elements as thought,
+will and feeling, and present them as a harmonious whole, is it not
+credible that divine personality should carry the synthesis a step
+further and harmonise in one being the thoughts, wills and feelings of
+God and man?  The hypostatic union of natures in Christ is a phenomenon
+not psychologically improbable, and one which can be paralleled from
+human experience.  There is in man what is tantamount to a conjunction
+of the two natures.  Man is rather diphysite than monophysite.  We
+pointed out above the extensive modifications that can be produced in a
+man's nature by environment.  There is in him a deeper duality which we
+can only characterise as an association of divine and human.  Man is an
+inhabitant of the earth, of earthly descent and finite destiny; yet the
+divine is not totally foreign to him.  He has hopes of heaven, moments
+of supraconsciousness, at times vision, resolve and emotion that are
+supra-normal.  The divine is an element in him.  It is more than an
+aspect of his nature.  Its influence operates often in opposition to
+the human element.  He is, as Bergson puts it, at the meeting-point of
+the upward and the downward currents.  He can know God, can do the will
+of God, can be filled with the love of God.  Here are the three factors
+of his nature, raised to a higher power.  His experience may lie and
+often does lie on two planes.  He is "double lived in regions new."
+
+In applying this human analogy to the ideal man caution is necessary.
+The duality of natures is a fact in both cases, but there is one
+essential difference.  The personal substratum of the natures in one
+case is human, in the other case divine.  In man the divine element is
+part of his nature, but not part of his person.  The ego remains human
+through all spiritual development.  "The best of saints is a saint at
+the best."  The secondary element in him is a fact, but it is part of
+his nature, not of his person.  It is otherwise in the case of Christ.
+He came from the ideal world and returned there.  The background of his
+experience was and is divine.  The secondary element in Him was the
+human, the primary the divine.  He shared man's experience and shared
+it really, but it did not form part of the core of His being.  When He
+thought or willed or felt as a man, it was a _kenosis_, a limiting of
+his natural mode of self-expression.  Divine and human are both present
+in the experience of Christ and of mankind, but with this
+difference--man rises to the divine; Christ condescended to the human.
+
+
+
+VALUE OF BERGSON'S PSYCHOLOGY TO ORTHODOX CHRISTOLOGY
+
+Person and nature are then real and distinct psychic entities.  They
+are real alike in God and man.  The distinction between them is not
+artificial or verbal; it is perhaps elusive, but it is genuine and
+capable of proof from experience.  The synthetic faculty of personality
+manifests itself in uniting without confusing, first, parts of the
+nature, second, entire natures.  These theses supply what is requisite
+for an intelligent appreciation of Christology.  Without them
+Christology is a battle of shadows; with them it becomes a practical
+problem of first importance for religious minds.  The psychology which
+justifies orthodox Christology is that which proclaims the
+interpenetration of psychic states, and which distinguishes between the
+surface states of a relaxed consciousness, and the deep-seated states
+which are ever present, but of which we are conscious only at moments
+of tension.
+
+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 man.  Human parallels make intelligible
+the co-existence of the two natures in the one person and the one body.
+What is normal in man is surely possible in the ideal man.  Heretical
+Christologies err in their psychology.  In Nestorian Christology Christ
+is presented as a dual personality, an abnormal association in one body
+of two distinct self-existent beings.  Thus a pathological case would
+be elevated to the rank of mankind's ideal.  The monophysite psychology
+plunges men into the opposite error.  An undiscriminating craving for
+unity among the phenomena of psychic life prevents any recognition of
+the dual character of experience.  Monophysitism is blind to the
+difference between person and nature because it places all psychic
+experiences on the one level.  Determined to find unity in its ideal,
+it seeks an inappropriate unity, the mathematical unity, the unity that
+excludes plurality.  To the monophysite the major part of the gospels
+is a sealed book, because the major part of the facts there recorded
+about Christ could not possibly have happened to a one-natured Christ.
+His human knowledge, normal, limited, progressive, His human will,
+natural, adequate to the human, inadequate to the superhuman task, his
+human feelings, his body consubstantial with ours are to the
+monophysite merely shadows or symbols or aspects of something greater.
+They are dwarfed into nothingness.  They are lost in the divine
+omniscience, omnipotence and transcendent love.
+
+
+
+
+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 attain.  He expects to
+find the solution of high moral and speculative problems in that union
+of divine and human.  The right faith is not easily reached.  It is an
+elusive prize.  There are conditions moral and intellectual attaching
+to its possession.  The moral conditions may take a lifetime to fulfil.
+Even on its intellectual side faith is a long process.  No sudden
+mental grasp of the whole truth can be attained.  It dawns on the mind
+gradually.  The discipline of faith in the incarnation consists in a
+gradual and laborious advance from stage to stage.  The various stages
+are half-truths or inadequate conceptions of Christ.  They are
+objectified in the Christological heresies.  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-human."
+Certainly the subjective fancies of the heresiarchs do not provide the
+whole account.  There is something of the universal in these heresies.
+They are in the main current of religious thought.  As the chief
+historic systems of philosophy repeat themselves in each generation and
+in the intellectual development of individual thinkers, so do the
+Christological heresies recur.  There is considerable truth in Hegel's
+contentions that the development of a man's mind is one with that of
+the general consciousness, that the individual reason is a miniature of
+the universal reason, that in fact the history of a philosopher's
+thinking is an abstract of the history of philosophy.  The same holds
+good in the field of religious thought.  Without much artificiality,
+without forcing the facts, a rational scheme of the Christological
+heresies might be drawn up.  They might be pictorially represented as
+the rungs of a ladder, which the truth-seeking mind scales rung by
+rung, pausing at the lower phases of Christological thought, and then
+resuming the ascent till the highest truth is attained.  The instrument
+of thought is much the same in all centuries; the objects of thought
+vary very little; so it is intelligible that the products of
+speculative and religious thought should remain the same to-day as in
+the fifth century.
+
+
+
+THE EXISTENCE OF MODERN MONOPHYSITISM
+
+Is there such a thing as modern monophysitism?  To this question the
+preceding paragraph supplies the answer, "There must be."  Heretical
+tendencies will be found in the Christian community in every
+generation, and the religious thought of individual Christians will
+pass through heretical phases.  Such heresy is rather an intellectual
+than a moral fault; but the possibility of being the heirs, without
+knowing it, 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 orthodoxy.  Not a few
+leaders of religious thought, in intention orthodox, in fact remain
+monophysites, through inability to analyse their beliefs or through a
+false sense of security, founded on the opinion that the age of heresy
+is past.
+
+It is commonly supposed that belief in the deity of Christ constitutes
+Christianity.  That supposition is wrong.  Arius was not the only
+heresiarch.  To transcend the Arian standpoint is only the first step
+in the long discipline of faith.  There are other heresies, other
+half-truths scarcely less pernicious than the Arian.  The recognition
+of Christ as God represents a great intellectual and moral advance, and
+is the first essential step in religion; but to rest content with the
+taking of that step is to remain on the lowest rung of the ladder of
+faith.  It is little use to form a lofty conception of Christ, if in
+doing so we insulate Him from the world of things and souls.  That is
+what monophysitism does, and because disguised monophysitism is
+prevalent in the church to-day, Christianity's grip is weak and the
+fire of devotion low.
+
+We may picture faith as a battlefield.  Doubt is the enemy entrenched
+in depth.  Arianism holds the first line of trenches.  Echeloned behind
+Arianism are the other heresies in a network of fortified redoubts,
+strong points and support trenches.  The church militant must make the
+furthest line her objective.  If her advance stays at an intermediate
+point, she is exposed to cross-fire from the support trenches of the
+subsidiary heresies.  The ground gained by the first assault proves
+untenable.  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 doctrine.
+
+A thorough and systematic advance of this sort was made by the orthodox
+Christologians of the fifth century.  The campaign was fought and won
+then.  It has, however, to be fought anew in each generation and in the
+experience of individual thinkers.  Monophysitism is commonly regarded
+as a vagary of oriental thought, killed once and for all by a church
+council in the fifth century.  That is a superficial view.
+Monophysitism is a hydra growth, and no Hercules can be found to
+exterminate it.  It reappears in each succeeding age, in West as well
+as East.  The structure of the human intellect is such that, whenever
+men begin to investigate the being of Christ, the tendency to regard
+Him as one-natured is present.  The church of the fifth century exposed
+that doctrine; it was beyond her power to kill it.
+
+
+
+REASONS FOR THE PREVALENCE OF MONOPHYSITISM
+
+Monophysitism is in our midst undetected to-day.  It is not hard to
+account for its prevalence.  The clergy are for the most part unable to
+expound Christology, and the laity are impatient of exposition.
+Anything savouring of precise theology is at a discount.  So pulpit and
+pew conspire to foster the growth of the tares.  The "Athanasian" creed
+is in disrepute, and its statement of dogmatic Christology is involved
+in the discredit attaching to the damnatory clauses.  The clergy are
+perhaps rather glad to leave the subject alone.  They know it is a
+difficult subject, and they are afraid of burning their fingers.  The
+laity rarely hear any reference to the two natures of Christ.  If they
+do, they are not interested; they do not think that the question makes
+any difference to faith or practice.  The whole extent of the
+Christological knowledge possessed by the average churchman is
+comprised in the formula, "Christ is God and man."  He cannot apply the
+formula nor reconcile it with common sense.  He occasionally hears from
+the pulpit the phrase "God-man"; but it is a mere phrase to him; it is
+not translated for him into a language that he can understand.  So he
+registers the doctrine mentally as an impenetrable mystery and gives it
+no further attention, or perhaps turns away in disgust from the system
+whose central figure is so unintelligibly presented by its authorised
+exponents.  The bare statement that Christ is God and man, though true,
+is not adequate.  It carries no conviction to thinking minds to-day.
+The full definition of the council of Chalcedon should be published
+broadcast, and so studied by theologians in the light of modern
+psychology that they can present it as a reasonable dogma, intelligible
+to-day and touching modern life.
+
+In the absence of such teaching the spread of false, unbalanced or
+inadequate conceptions of what Christ was and of what He is is
+inevitable.  Our concern here is to exhibit those of a monophysite
+character.  Monophysite tendencies of the present day may be grouped
+according as they affect Christ's being or His work or Christian
+practice.  We propose to take them in that order.
+
+
+
+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 ways.  To its subtle influence is
+traceable the capital defect of modern presentations of Christ, namely,
+that they make no appeal to the outsider.  Christ is proclaimed as the
+solution of moral, social and industrial problems.  As a rule in such
+cases the name "Christ" is used as a synonym for Christian principles.
+Such appeals are addressed to the head; they do not touch the heart and
+fire the imagination; they do not kindle that personal devotion to the
+Man Christ Jesus which has always been the dynamic of the faith.  The
+historic Christ is not presented in a way that would appeal to the
+unconvinced.  Christian teaching is becoming more and more esoteric.
+In the language of Christology, a diphysite Christ is not preached.
+His human nature is kept in the background.  It is not portrayed in
+arresting colours.  If the apostles and apostolic men had preached the
+impersonal redeemer of modern religious thought, they would never have
+won the world for Christ.  Their imaginations and lives were fired by
+contact with a Man of flesh and blood.  So they presented a Christ
+whose true humanity appealed to His fellow-men.  They showed the gospel
+picture to an unbelieving world, and the world responded to its appeal.
+
+It is not easy to bridge the centuries and regain the apostles'
+standpoint, but until it is done the church's message will lack
+inspiration.  The phrase "the historic Christ" is commonly used, as if
+it covered the whole ground.  It is certainly serviceable as a protest
+against a bare logos theory of the incarnation, but in itself it is not
+adequate.  What requires emphasis is the humanity of the historic
+Christ.  Many Christian teachers purposely withhold this emphasis from
+fear of playing into the hands of Arians and Nestorians.  No doubt if
+pressed they would give intellectual assent to the dogma of the two
+natures, but they shrink from following it out to its consequences.
+There is a widespread feeling that it is irreverent to dwell on the
+fact that Christ was a real man.  A firm grasp of catholic Christology
+in its entirety is the cure for this squeamishness.  To obscure the
+fact of His Manhood is not the true reply to a denial of His Deity.  A
+true presentation of Christ must give full weight to the facts that He
+had a human body, human mind, human feelings and human will, that His
+body was in space normally subject to physical law, that His
+consciousness and subconsciousness conformed to psychic law.  Wherever
+a denial of these facts is found, there is monophysitism.  Wherever
+they are obscured or neglected, there are monophysite tendencies.
+
+
+
+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 death.  Monophysitism in
+undermining belief in the reality of Christ's manhood is weakening
+sympathy with His sufferings.  Calvary like Bethlehem has lost much of
+its appeal.  A classical comparison will illustrate this fact.  Plato's
+account of Socrates' last hour in the prison and of his drinking the
+hemlock is, I imagine, to many educated men far more moving than the
+story of the Passion and Death of Christ.  There is a curious
+similarity in the two tragedies that invites attention and comparison.
+Both sufferers were heroes and moral reformers, the victims of mistaken
+zeal on the part of religious authority.  Socrates died in a ripe age
+with his life work accomplished.  Jesus was cut off in His prime.
+Socrates' last hours were tranquil and his passing quick and easy.
+Jesus after shame and torture died a lingering death.  The dysthanasia
+of Jesus should, one would opine, make a stronger appeal to men's
+sympathies than does the euthanasia of Socrates.  Yet on the whole the
+reverse is the case.  The difference in the respective styles of the
+two narratives does not give the whole explanation.  It is true that
+the Phaedo is a work of fine art while the gospel story is a plain
+statement of fact.  The reason, however, for the difference in appeal
+goes deeper than literary style.  The reader of the Phaedo puts himself
+into the place of Socrates and suffers with him.  As we read the
+Passion of Christ there rises a barrier between us and the divine
+sufferer.  Unconsciously we say to ourselves, "Christ suffered, of
+course, but He did not suffer as we should have suffered in His place.
+His were not the real sufferings of a real man."
+
+If the passion of Christ and that of Socrates were weighed in the same
+balances, there would be less indifference to-day to the gospel story.
+Were Christ the Man realised as such, visualised, as other great men of
+history are visualised, among his followers, the hero worship that
+inspired the early church would revive.  What makes Christians
+indifferent to Christ's sufferings is not the lapse of centuries nor
+weakness of imagination but a subconscious monophysitism.  There is to
+most minds a haze of unreality overhanging the accounts of His life and
+death.  They forget that He shared human experience to the full.  They
+think of Him as doing things _rheidios_ like the Homeric gods.  In
+point of fact, His great results were achieved only after long
+laborious exertion.  His was a life of strenuous human activity,
+physical and mental.  Even His miracles were accompanied by a physical
+throb of sympathy; virtue went out of Him.  Redemption made it
+necessary.  Enthusiastic devotion to a person must be grounded in
+community of experience.  It is the human touches in the drama of
+Christ's life that make the most powerful appeal to mankind.  Yet the
+human element is obscured, as a rule, in modern presentations of the
+gospel.  For spiritual minds it is comparatively easy to apprehend a
+divine Christ.  To apprehend a human Christ makes a larger call on
+their imagination and their sympathy.  Spiritual men are naturally
+monophysite in their thinking.  They shrink from the mental effort that
+diphysitism demands.  Their attention is focussed on Christ's
+superiority to human limitations.  They scarcely see the miracle of the
+human, and thus they miss the import of the divine miracle.  In the
+atmosphere of monophysitism mysticism thrives, but devotion decays.  We
+may instance the almost total disappearance of the crusading spirit.
+The Christ to whom our thoughts usually turn is an omnipresent ideal
+with no historical or local associations.  His birth-place and His
+country evoke only a lukewarm sentiment.  The church's year is
+neglected.  The historical facts of Christ's life are often regarded as
+of only minor importance.  Piety used to consist in personal loyalty to
+the Founder of a universal religion; it is now considered synonymous
+with obedience to the "golden rule."
+
+
+
+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 debated.  That debate showed how much uncertainty
+on Christological questions exists and how strong monophysite opinion
+still is.  In spite of Christ's own _dicta_, in spite of the dogma of
+two natures, denial of the limitation was widespread and persistent.
+To many devout minds it seems impious to speak of Christ's ignorance.
+This is a case in which the Chalcedonian definition is an invaluable
+guide.  If one brings to an examination of Christ's nature the
+preconceived notion of His omniscience, the doctrine of the limitation
+of His knowledge seems an outrage on belief; but if one approaches the
+question with the orthodox formula in mind, one is prepared to find
+that His cognitive faculties were perfectly human and humanly perfect.
+So we find it.  His knowledge and His faculties of knowledge on the
+lower plane of His experience were essentially the same as ours.  He
+thought in our categories.  He used our organon, perfect of its kind,
+but still a human organon.  As man, inevitably, He had thoughts
+uncognised; and such a mental state we call "ignorance."  His mind
+passed through stages of development as ours does.  Education widened
+His horizon, strengthened His faculties, and increased His knowledge.
+Advance in knowledge implies a prior state of relative ignorance.  The
+word "ignorance" as applied to Christ sounds very terrible; but
+investigation of its meaning robs it of its terrors.  We use the word
+in two senses.  On the one hand it may mean the absence of a thought,
+its absolute non-presence in consciousness.  On the other it may mean
+thought unrelated to experience, one whose implications are not or
+cannot be fully deduced, in fact, the incomplete cognition of an idea.
+In neither case does it involve imperfection in the instrument or moral
+fault.  On the contrary ignorance is a mark of the normal in cognition.
+If ignorance and limitation of knowledge were not found in Christ, we
+should be forced to agree with Apollinaris that the divine Logos had
+superseded His human intellect.
+
+Ignorance in so far as it is a positive attribute is far from being a
+mark of imperfection.  It is a true paradox that ignorance like
+obliviscence forms part of the process of human cognising.  Probably in
+the truth of things memory is of the essence of mind.  Thoughts
+naturally and spontaneously reproduce themselves.  The past of
+experience tends automatically to carry forward into the present.  The
+function of the brain then, or of a mental faculty intimately
+co-operating with the brain is to discriminate, to sift and select, to
+prolong into present consciousness what is of importance for action and
+to relegate the irrelevant to partial or total oblivion.  From this
+psychological standpoint ignorance and obliviscence are seen to be
+achievements of the intellect.  The presence of all facts in a human
+consciousness is unthinkable.  If it were possible, it would paralyse
+action.  If we exempt Christ from the law of ignorance and
+obliviscence, we _ipso facto_ dehumanise his cognition.  When we say
+that Jesus was ignorant of much scientific truth, or that his
+prescience was limited, we do not compromise His dignity.  We simply
+assert the naturalness of His intellect and the true humanity of that
+element of His nature.  To do otherwise, to claim omniscience for His
+human intellect is gross monophysitism.  His knowledge was deeper,
+surer, more penetrating than ours, because the light of His divine
+intuition streamed through the veil of sense and illumined the lower
+phases of intelligence.  This is an instance of the _communicatio
+idiomatum_.  The properties of the two natures act and react upon one
+another.  But we must make the distinction of natures our
+starting-point, or fusion will take place.  There must be _idiomata_
+first, or the _communicatio_ is meaningless.
+
+
+
+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 present.  It is scarcely possible to realise the
+present existence of a human Christ, unless the fact of His actual
+human existence in the first century of our era be grasped.  If He had
+but one nature on earth, He has but one nature now in heaven.  If the
+historic Christ was monophysite, so also is the Christ to whom we pray.
+In this consequence consists the seriousness of modern monophysitism.
+The present reality of His human nature is to-day even among His
+followers doubted, obscured, or forgotten.  Christ is to many spiritual
+minds merely an ideal personality, a summary of their own ethical
+ideals.  They perhaps regard Him as a disembodied spirit or mysterious
+influence.  They rarely attain the catholic standpoint and see the
+human nature as a psychic entity actually existent to-day.  At any rate
+the doctrine is not thought out to its consequences.  The "perpetual
+intercession" is, it is feared, little more than a phrase.  That Christ
+as man still intercedes for men is a verity not understood and only
+half appreciated.  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 pray.  The Church teaches that there
+is somewhere, in some transcendent form of existence, a being with
+perfect human mind, whose will in strength and scope is perfectly
+proportioned to His knowledge, whose feelings are in perfect mutual
+harmony, whose psychic nature finds outward expression in a glorified
+body; that this perfect being once walked this earth, and yet had and
+has the ground of His being in a divine personality.  Such a Christ the
+latent monophysitism of our thinking hides from our view.
+
+
+
+THE DOCTRINE OF SUBJECTIVE REDEMPTION DUE TO MONOPHYSITISM
+
+The doctrines of Christ's person and of His work are intimately
+associated.  What He did depended on what He was.  Christology and
+Soteriology act and react upon each other.  If Christology is crippled,
+Soteriology goes lame.  Christ takes His stand in the centre of the
+cosmic process in virtue of His unique being.  In that He unites deity
+and humanity in His own person, He brought redemption within the reach
+of mankind.  His redemption of humanity was as definite a fact as His
+assumption of human nature.  Both to the Christian are objective
+historical facts; if either of them falls to the ground, so does the
+other; and with that collapse goes the purpose of creation and
+humanity's hope.  A docetic interpretation of the human nature entails
+a docetic view of redemption.  Monophysitism, as we have seen, casts
+doubts upon the reality of the sufferings and humanity of Christ; in so
+doing it compromises the work He accomplished.  Atonement ceases to be
+a cosmic transaction completed on Calvary, and becomes a subjective
+process.  Redemption is made into an attitude, or rather a change of
+attitude, on the part of the individual.  That Christ wrought a power
+and hope for man which man could not achieve for himself is not a
+familiar doctrine to-day.  Pain, not sin, is the great modern problem.
+The Cross is made to stand for sympathy, not for satisfaction.
+Salvation, achieved at a definite moment of history and conferred on
+believers of subsequent generations, rests for its foundations on the
+objective assumption of human nature by a divine person.  If the
+foundations be undermined, as monophysitism undermines them, the
+superstructure crumbles.  Redemption becomes improvement by effort and
+self-help, or a constant endeavour after a private ideal of conduct.
+
+
+
+MONOPHYSITISM LIMITS THE SCOPE OF REDEMPTION
+
+Monophysitism shows itself also in the modern tendency to narrow the
+scope of redemption.  Partial salvation is offered as a substitute for
+the salvation of the entire man.  This tendency is a natural result of
+narrowing the import of the incarnation.  It runs counter to orthodox
+Christology and the derivate doctrines.  A divine economy is traceable
+in God's dealings with men; there is nothing purposeless, nothing
+otiose in God's dispensation.  The Church's invariable answer to the
+Apollinarians was grounded in belief in this economy.  She argued that
+Christ could not redeem what He did not assume, and, conversely, that
+what He assumed He redeemed.  He assumed human nature in its entirety,
+thought, will, feeling and body; therefore not one of those elements of
+human nature lies outside the scope of redemption.  Monophysitism
+excludes some or all of those elements from the being of the incarnate
+Christ, and by so doing deprives the corresponding elements in man's
+nature of their rightful share in the benefit of redemption.
+
+The feeling that some parts of human nature are more fitted to survive
+than others is wide-spread to-day.  It is found within as well as
+without the Church.  We constantly read of the "survival factor."  The
+term implies the belief that at death part of the man's nature survives
+and part perishes.  There is, however, no general agreement as to which
+part constitutes the "survival factor."  The intellectualist pins his
+faith to the immortality of the reason.  He is content to let death
+deprive him of everything except the logical faculty.  For the aesthete
+beauty alone is eternal, and his hope for the future lies in the
+continuance of his aesthetic sense.  The materialist sees permanence
+only in the indestructibility of the ultimate physical constituents of
+his body.  The epigenesis of a spiritual body lies outside his horizon.
+The volitionist finds all the value of life in the moral nature.  For
+him the good will persists when all else is resolved into nothingness.
+Character alone, he says, survives the shock of death.  All these
+limited views of survival are symptoms of monophysite ways of thinking.
+The Christian, on the contrary, holds that what is redeemed _eo ipso_
+survives.  Whatever else is involved in redemption persistence
+certainly is included.  Monophysitism stands for a partial redemption;
+but to the orthodox who believe that Christ assumed human nature in its
+entirety, each part and the whole are of infinite value.  He holds that
+the strengthening, purifying, and perfecting that salvation brings
+apply to the psychic and the physical natures, that no part is exempt,
+that neither intellect nor will nor feeling ceases with death, that the
+range of reason will be increased, and its operation made more sure,
+that lofty and sustained endeavour will replace the transient energy of
+the earthly will, that feeling will be enhanced, harmonised, and
+purified, that a spiritual body continuous with the body of the flesh
+will express man's heavenly experience.  These high far-reaching hopes
+rest on the doctrines of catholic Christology.  Christ assumed our
+nature complete in body and psychic parts.  He did so with a purpose,
+and that purpose could be none other than the redemption of the body
+and of all the psychic elements.  To the mystic, body and human
+activities may seem only transient and unworthy of a place in heaven.
+Such is false spirituality.  It is contrary to the tenor of catholic
+teaching.  The incarnation brought divine and human together on earth.
+The resurrection fixed their union.  The ascension gave humanity an
+eternal place among eternal things.
+
+
+
+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 sufferings.  Dogmatic reasons apart, the monophysite is
+motived by a repugnance to physical pain and by a wish to exclude it
+from the experience of the human ideal.  To this motive we can trace
+the modern tendency to transfer the doctrinal centre of gravity from
+the Passion to the incarnation.  The Passion and Death used to occupy
+the first place in the thoughts of Christians and formed the foundation
+for all theories of atonement.  The incarnation was regarded as, for
+the purposes of dogma, subsidiary.  Within recent times the position
+has been reversed.  The main stress falls now on the incarnation.  The
+Passion seems of secondary importance, if, as modern theology often
+teaches, all purposes of redemption were secured prior to it.  In thus
+changing the venue of redemption modern theology is wrong.  The mistake
+is prompted largely, so it seems to the writer, by monophysitism latent
+in modern religious thought; at any rate strict adherence to the
+catholic doctrine of two natures would have prevented it.  The human
+nature that Christ assumed had to be perfected through suffering;
+otherwise it could not attain that universality and representative
+character which enabled it to become the medium of universal salvation.
+If it had been enough for the divine spirit to mingle with men, to show
+them a pattern life, and to touch them to higher things, an apparition
+would have been adequate, and no community of suffering would have been
+necessary.  Since Christ not only appeared as man, but experienced in
+His flesh all man's experiences, death which is the climax of human
+experience fell to His lot and set the seal to the divine enterprise.
+Since He who died was the flesh and blood embodiment of the cosmic
+relation.  His death has cosmic significance.  The doctrinal edifice in
+which Calvary is of ornamental and not of structural value has
+monophysitism for its foundation.
+
+
+
+HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF CHRISTIANITY OBSCURED
+
+Christ's mission is misunderstood to-day as well as His cosmic work.
+In certain religious quarters where zeal is not balanced by learning,
+His mission as the founder of a religious society is forgotten.  To
+those who are deficient in historic sense the continuity of the Church
+down the centuries seems unimportant, and institutional religion a
+hindrance rather than a help to the spiritual life of the individual
+Christian.  Pietism of this kind has always been present in the church;
+to-day it is prevalent.  It nominally associates its piety with the
+historic Christ, but actually it worships an ideal constructed by its
+own ethical imagination.  Such pietists spiritualise the faith.  The
+facts of the historic creed are to them little more than symbols of
+religious truth.  Spiritual resurrection, spiritual ascension are the
+only miracles for them.  This tendency to spiritualise everything is a
+phase of monophysitism.  It results from losing sight of the person of
+the historic Christ, and resolving His assumption of human nature into
+the assumption of a title.
+
+
+
+CHRISTOLOGY A DETERMINANT OF SACRAMENTAL THOUGHT
+
+Errors in sacramental teaching necessarily accompany misconceptions of
+the person of Christ.  The incarnation is a cosmic sacrament, the
+meeting-point of divine and human, and the sacraments of the church are
+types of the vaster mystery.  In both type and antitype it is all
+important to give due weight to divine and human, and not to exalt one
+element at the expense of the other.  Those who undervalue the human
+nature of Christ are disposed to undervalue the outward sign in the
+sacraments.  Not appreciating the hypostatic union of divine with
+human, they misunderstand the sacramental union of the same elements.
+Blind to the significance of Christ's humanity in the economy of
+redemption, they fail to see how matter can be the channel of
+sacramental grace.  Yet the discipline of faith is the same in both
+cases.  The Christian enterprise is not merely to believe in the
+divine, but to believe in the divine manifested in the human.
+
+There are two divergent, almost opposing, schools of sacramental
+teaching, both of which have inherited the spirit of monophysitism.
+Both are instances of sacramental monism.  First, there are those who
+identify the outward signs and the inward grace; second, those to whom
+the inward grace is everything and the outward sign nothing.  Both
+schools of thought destroy the nature of a sacrament.  The radical
+error of both consists in undervaluing the human and material.  In the
+first case the error takes the form of the transubstantiation doctrine,
+which is exactly parallel to the extreme form of Eutychianism.
+According to Eutyches, the human nature of Christ was absorbed into the
+divine and lost there; the truth of His being was the divine
+personality; the human element was only an appearance.  Similarly the
+transubstantiation theory conceives the mutation of the _substance_ of
+the material elements and the loss of their proper nature; the
+appearance of reality that the _accidents_ possess is an illusion of
+the senses.  We may note in passing that the opposite error to
+transubstantiation finds its Christological parallel in Nestorianism.
+Socinianism which separates symbol from sacramental grace is
+sacramental dualism, as Nestorianism is Christological dualism.  Both
+abandon a vital unity of divine and human.  The pietistic or mystical
+view of the sacraments does so too, but in a different way.  This
+second form of sacramental monism has much in common with the doctrine
+of one nature.  To the pietist the divine seems all important, and the
+material no help, but rather a hindrance to the spiritual life.  The
+faith of the individual to him is the seat of the efficacy of the
+sacraments; he regards matter as unreal if not sinful, and in either
+case unworthy to be a channel of divine grace.  Echo after echo of
+monophysite thought can be caught here.  The surest way to combat
+sacramental errors on both sides is a clear and definite statement of
+the catholic doctrine of Christology.
+
+
+
+NEED OF A MENTAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HUMAN NATURE OF CHRIST
+
+As the interval of time widens, separating Christians from the human
+life of their God, the more urgent becomes the obligation to put forth
+a constructive effort of the historical imagination.  The attempt to
+keep that memory green grows harder and harder as the centuries pass;
+but Christians must make it; otherwise the historical character of
+their religion will perish.  There need be no fear that the interests
+of spiritual religion will suffer.  Amongst moderns the danger of
+idealising the human is greater than that of humanising the divine.  An
+intelligent appreciation of Christ's human life draws out love and
+kindles reverence towards the divine personality who condescended to
+the level of mankind.  We may point by way of illustration to the
+effect of biblical criticism.  Christians of a previous generation
+dreaded the touch of criticism.  They thought it profanation.  They
+refused to admit any human element in the bible.  Criticism, however,
+had its way.  Bibliolatry had to go.  The result is that the bible is a
+living book to us to-day.  In spite of the fears of the devout there
+was little to lose and much to gain by recognising the human element in
+the bible.  As with the written word, so with the living Word.  Without
+a recognition of the human element in His being, a full assimilation of
+His teaching and an intimate perception of His real presence are
+unattainable.  If this recognition be accorded, the great past will
+live again in the present.  Hostile critics study the life and
+character of Christ and the records of them with a view to proving that
+He was merely man.  Believers may adopt their method with a different
+object.  They may undertake the same study in order to comprehend the
+wonder of the Man, and so rise to some conception of the wonder of the
+God.  The gospels are read mainly as a handbook of devotion; they
+should be studied as the biography of a hero.  The face-value of its
+incidents is often neglected, while the reader seeks allegorical and
+mystical interpretations.  To form a mental picture of Christ in His
+environment, to read ourselves back into His world and then into His
+ways of thought, such efforts are more than ever needed to-day, and
+they are more than ever absent.  Historic sense and imagination should
+be allowed to play upon the recorded acts and sayings of Jesus, until a
+great temple to His memory rises in the high places of the mind,
+dominating thence the whole intellectual and moral life.  Such an
+enterprise would infuse life and meaning into the Christological
+formula, and would effect, so to speak, a reconstruction of the human
+nature of the historic Christ.  The Christian's attitude towards the
+Man Christ Jesus is the "acid test" of the sincerity of his faith.  No
+one can bring intellectual difficulties to a being to whom cognising
+was a foreign process, nor moral difficulties to one who knew no
+conflict of wills, nor sorrows to one "all breathing human passion far
+above."  If we picture the ideal of all mankind as thinking our
+thoughts, willing as we will, feeling as we feel, we are united to Him
+by an intellectual, moral and emotional bond of sympathy.  Such a
+threefold cord is not quickly broken.  Communion with such a Being
+leads the worshipper to the heart of the Christian religion.
+
+
+
+
+THE END
+
+
+
+
+
+
+PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of Project Gutenberg's Monophysitism Past and Present, by A. A. Luce
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK MONOPHYSITISM PAST AND PRESENT ***
+
+***** This file should be named 30219.txt or 30219.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        https://www.gutenberg.org/3/0/2/1/30219/
+
+Produced by Al Haines
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/30219.zip b/30219.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c9dc000
--- /dev/null
+++ b/30219.zip
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cd51add
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #30219 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30219)