10. MoNOPHTsmsM is only a modification and con- tinuation of Eutychianism. As the term indicates, the Monophysites, although they rejected the Eutychian notion of an absorption of the human nature into the
CHRISTOLOGT
284
CHRISTOLOGT
diyine, nevertheless held firmly to the doctrine of but one nature in Christ. They conceded, indeed, s com- posite nature (jiia ipixng mn/^erog or fila ^i/oic ^«'^)» but not two natures. They assumed a diversity of qualities without corresponding substances, and made tiio humanity of Christ a mere accident of the immu- table divine substance. Their liturgical shibboleth was, God has been cruc^fied^ which they introduced into the trisagion (Sytoc ^ ^«<ic» &yu>Q ItrxvpSc, Uyioc 6Ba- vaTOQf 6 eravpto^iig Si thiSlq^ IXkrioov rjiACLQ — an exten- sion of the seraphic ascription, Isa. vi, 8). Hence they were also called Theopaschitbs QdiovairxiTai), The Monophysite controversies commenced soon after the Council of Chalcedon, which fiuled to pacify the Church, and convulsed the East, from patriarchs and emperors down to monks and peasants, for more than a hundred years. The detailed history will be pre- sented in a special article. The fifth oecumenical coun- cil, held at Constantinople A.D. 558, wliich was to end these violent strifes, resulted in the condemnation of the Antiochlan (Nestorian and semi-Nestorian) theol- ogy, and a partial victory of the Alexandrian Monoph- ysitism, as far as it could be reconciled with the sym- l)ol of Chalcedon. Notwithstanding tliis concession, the Monophysites, like their antipodes, the Nestorians, continued as separate sects in hostile opposition to the orthodox Greek Church. They are divided into sep- arate branches, the Jacobiiet in Syria, the Copts in Egypt, the AbyssinianSy the Armenians, and the Mch roniies. (See the respective articles.)
11. The MoNOTHELiTE controversy is a continua- tion of the Nestorian and Entychian controversies, and relates to the question whether Christ tiad but one will {^kXrjfia') or two, a divine and a human. Nestorian- ism, of course, required two wills as a complement of two natures, while the Monophysites taught but one will. The emperor Heraclius proposed a compromise formula — one divine human energy (jiia ^lavSpiKt^ kv- ipyiia), but it was opposed in the West. The sixth OBcnmenical council in Constantinople, A.D. 680, set- tled the dispute by teaching the doctrine of two wills harmoniously co-operating, the human will following the divine (dvo ^wrixd ^iXijfiaraf o^x vvtifavria, dXX' iir6(i€vov rh Av^pMirivov aifrov ^kXrifia Kai viroraO' (fSfjiivov). Thus Monotheletism was condemned, but was adhered to by the Maronites on Mount Lebanon till the time of the Crusades. The Monophysites (q. V.) are all Monothelites (q. v.).
12. The ADOPTiAif controversy arose in Spain to- ward the close of the eighth century, and turned upon the question whether Christ, according to his human nature, was the Son of God by nature (naturaliter), or pnly by adoption (nuncupative). The latter doc^ino was condemned as heretical in a synod at Frankfort on the Maine, 794. (See article Adoptianists, vol. i, 76, and Elipandus of Toledo and Felix of Urgel.)
13. SociNiAKiSM, a system of ultra and pseudo Prot- estantism, found'ed by L&lius Socinus ^died 1562) and his nephew Faustus Socinus (died 1604), returned al- most to the poor and meagre Christology of the Ebi- onites and Nazarenes, and added to it the heathenish notion of an apotheosis of Christ after his death. It teaches that Jesus of Nazareth, though supematurally conceived, was a mere man, but favored by God with extraordinary revelations, elevated to heaven, deified in reward of his holy life, and intrusted with the gov- enfment of the Church which he founded. It substi- tutes for an incarnate divinity a created and delegated divinity. Invocation of Christ is allowed, but not en- joined ; it is an adiaphoron. See Socinians ; Soci-
HTS.
14. Modem UinTABiAinsM in England and America has no uniform and settled belief concerning the per- son of Christ, and branches out into two very difi'erent tendencies, the conservative, represented by Channing, wliich in its approach towards orthodoxy rises to a sort of high Arianism, and the radical, represented by the
erratic Theodore Parker, wMdi sinks almost to Uie mythical Christ of Stmnss, and sacrifices his sinltte perfection, although Parker has some eloquent pas- sages on the superiority of Clirist over all other saget. The more serious class of Unitarians make great ac- count of the perfect example of Christ, and Channing's sermon on the " Character of Christ** (FFbrfct, toL rr, p. 1-29), is one of the noblest tributes to the moral per- fection of Jesus of Nazareth. See Uhitariahtsm.
16. Rationalism has assumed diflferent phases, and resorted to various theories concerning the persoD of Christ, which agree only in the denial of his divinity, and of all the supernatural or miraculous events in his history. The WolfenbOttel Fragmentist (Reimam^ represents the hypothesis of wilftil imposture; Paulos of Heidelberg the hypothesis of innocent delusioD. which mistook extnundinary medical cures for super- natural miracles, and an extraordinary man for a di* vine being ; Strauss and Renan, the theory of poetical fiction, the one in its mythical, tiie other in its legend- ary form. (Comp. on these different Christological hy- potheses, Schaff, The Person of Christ; the MhraeU of History, with a Reply to Strauss andBenan, (md a Col- lection of Testimonies of Unbelievers, 1865.) But aH these rationalistic attempts, instead of explaining the mystery of Ctirist*s life, only substitute an unnatural prodigy for a supematmal miracle. They have been tried and found wanting ; one ha» in turn superseded the other, even during the lifetime of their champicms. Paulus rejects the hypothesis of Rei^parus ; S^nss most acutely refutes Paulus ; Renan, in part at least dissents ftom Strauss ; the unprincipled Schenkel makes ^ half-way approach to both in his insignificant Characterbild Jetu, and is In turn treated with con- temptuous scorn and the keenest sarcasm by StrauM. (See Die HaJben md die Gamen, 1865.) The old and ever young feith in the divine-human Redeemer has outlived all these attacks, and is now stronger than ever, the only refuge and comfort of a sinful world. It is in conflict with these latest forms of unbelief that the evangelical theology of Germany has achieved its greatest triumphs and most lasting merits. France, England, and America have engaged in the battle, and contributed their share towards the defeat of the mod- em anti-Christ, and the defence of the true Christ of the Gospels and of the Church, on whom the salvation of the world depends.