(e) Apollinarianism (see APoLunimuaits), as well as Arianism, was condemned at this lat ter council. It was a reaction against Arianism, and taught that Christ had a human body and animal life, but that the pre-existent Logos took the place in Him of the human mind and spirit. Against this extreme, the Church protested that Christ had a real human soul as well as a real human body.
(f) Nestorius (q.v), bishop of Constanti nople, objected to Mary "the mother of God.D This position led him, however, to join the human and divine in Christ so loosely that he was accused, probably unjustly, of giving Christ not only two natures but making Him two persons, at best a man inhabited by God. He was irregularly deposed at Ephesus in 431 A.D., but the verdict was generally accepted that the Church must insist on two natures vitally united in one person.
(g) The opposite extreme was attempted about 448 by Eutyches (q.v.), an abbot of Con stantinople. He maintained that Christ had only one nature, a fusion of the human and divine; and something different from either. period of controversy was closed by the cele, brated formula of the Council of Chalcedon (see CHALCEDON) 451 A.D. as follows: "We, then, following the Holy Fathers, all with one con sent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood: truly God and truly man, of a reasonable (rational) soul and body; consubstantial (coessential) with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Man hood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father accord ing to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsist ence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord ,Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning (have declared) concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the Holy Fathers has handed down to us" This declaration has ever since been considered by the' strictly orthodox the limit of human wis dom on this subject.
(h) Still it did not immediately end the con troversy. Eutychianism revived in Monophysit ism (see MONOPHYSITES), or the doctrine of one nature in Christ, which convulsed the Eastern Empire for more than a century; while its cor ollary, Monotheletism (see MONOTHELITES), the doctrine that Christ had one will, unfortu nately induced the Church in the sixth cecu menical council at Constantinople in 689 A.D. to assert that will belongs to nature rather than to person, that consequently Christ had two wills, never at variance. This completed the orthodox statement.
III. Modern Views.— Since the Chalcedo nian formula (see g above) followed the lines recommended by Pope Leo I, it was accepted by the Western Church, although it subsequently fell somewhat into the background before the development of the idea of the Church as the body of Christ. Briefly, though the incarnation was discussed in the Middle Ages, no progress was made, and the great Reformed Churches made, and still make, their Christological dec larations on the basis of the Chalcedonian formula.
(a) White the great creeds and the great mass of the Christian Church still rest here, many modern Protestant scholars insist on re examining this great central doctrine as they do all others, seeking a restatement more in ac cordance with modern points of view. There is an inclination, on the one hand, to magnify the incarnation as the great specifically Christian doctrine, and on the other, to object to the ancient definition of it as too fine-spun and Metaphysical, going beyond what it is given men to lcnow. These scholars insist on a revaluation of the Scripture statements and the historical facts on' which the doctrine is based, especially on giving to the fact of Christ's growth in knowledge and wisdom, and to his true human ity generally, its proper weight, on proceeding on the lines of history and ethics rather than On the lines of metaphysics. Many deem the ancient formulas full of bad psychology and impossible philosophy, and demand a restate ment in line with the progress of human thought in other departments of knowledge.' Many even of these, however, would agree that the general results of the earlier contest must be preserved as the expression of the universal faith of believers from the apostolic age to the preSent.