rther 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