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