icture 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 c