ed 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 a