What more? Since the two natures of Jesus were physically united in one divine Person, what handle for heresy remained? One handle more! Three of the Oriental patriarchs,— Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria and Athanasius of Antioch,— joined their patriarchal power in one last effort to destroy the great mystery of the Christian faith. They had to admit with Nicaza, Ephesus and Chal cedon that one divine Person, Jesus the Christ, had two natures, the divine and the human, physically united in one hypostasis or Person. But they resented the mystery of a perfect Man, who was not a human person. They withdrew from the perfection of the human nature of Jesus. They taught that, in Jesus, there was no human activity; that the activity of the human nature was merged into the activity of the divine; that, in Jesus, there was only the activity of the divine nature; that, in Jesus, there was only one activity, and one will, and that one activity and one will were divine. Against this heresy, the Council of Constanti nople, A.D. 680, defined the perfection of the human nature of the Christ, his perfect human will distinct from the divine, his perfect human activity distinct from the divine.
One more effort was made by the Orient to detract from the perfection of the two natures in Christ. Photius, in the 9th century, admitted with the Council of Constantinople, the per fection of the human nature of Jesus; he de tracted from the divine, and denied to the Son equality with the Father in the procession of the Holy Spirit. He was condemned. The Church taught the equality of Father and Son, the procession of the Holy Spirit from Father and Son as from one principle. A schism re sulted. The tear was mended for a century and a half. Then, in the middle of the 11th century, under the Emperor Michael Cmrularius, the party of Photius again gained power. Con stantinople was wrenched from Rome. The Eastern Church was separated from the West ern in its Christology.
Stanley, 'Eastern Church' 1864 ; Thatcher, 'The Apostolic Church' 1893 ; Rainy, 'The Ancient Catholic Church' 1902 • Duchesne, 'Christian Worship' (1904), Churches Separated from Rome' (1907), 'The Early History of the Church' (1910); Batiffol, 'Primitive Catholicism' (1911) ; Barnes, 'The Early Church' (1913) • Fortescue, 'The Lesser Eastern Churches) (1913), 'The Ortho dox Eastern Church' (1911) ; 'The Be of the Church' (1914) ; Fisher, 'The Beginnings of Christianity' (1916).
IV. Modern Schools of Unitarians.—A f ter the break between the Eastern and Western churches, there were no widespread, epoch-making Christological con troversies for many centuries. The Reformers took over the three fundamental facts of tradi tional Christology; they taught the divinity and the humanity of the one divine Person, Jesus Christ. An exception was Lzlius Soci nus, who in A.D. 1544 was obliged to leave Italy for denying the divinity of Christ. From Socinianism came Unitarianism, which was first organized in Poland about A.D. 1563.
Unitarians teach that Jesus is the highest of men; but profess a deism which excludes the doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.
Modern theories of Christology are the out come of two tendencies, which to-day divide German liberal Christologists. The first ten dency is of the Religionspsychologischerklar ungschule,— the school that claims to interpret religion according to the findings of psychol ogy; its chief resultant theories are the Ideal Christ, and the Christ of Experience. The sec ond tendency is of the Religionsgeschichtlich erklarungschule,— the school that claims to in terpret religion in terms of history; its chief resultant theories arc the Christ of History and the Mythic Christ. Modern Christological theories at times show both tendencies,— for instance, the Christ of History now and then dovetails into the Christ of Experience; but it will make for clear exposition, if according to his dominant tendency, the modern ghristolo gist he classed under one of these four main headings. All of these modern theories either explicitly deny the divinity of Christ or defend a Godhead that departs from the definitions of the early councils of the Church.
The Ideal Christ—During the 17th century, the Lutheran theologians strove by scholasticism to defend Lutheran Christology, and to ex plain the union of the two 'natures of Christ in dne divine Person. Their attempts were an intellectualistic departure from Luther's voluntaristic theology.
The revolt against this array of scholastic ism on the side of Luther took place in the 18th century. The pioneer rebel was Kant (1724-1804). He was an anti-intellectualist. According to him, pure reason can reach, not the noumenon, the thing in itself, but the phainomenon, the thing in the content of con sciousness; and hence pure reason cannot at tain to the knowledge either of the human or the divine nature in Jesus. Hence faith is not an act of pure reason on the authority of God revealing. Faith is an act of the practical rea son. Practical reason postulates, by a Kantian Ought, the acceptance of the Man-God; and this acceptance by the will is the Kantian act of faith in Christ (Consult Kant, 'Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft,> Chapter 4). Kant had set at naught things in themselves. They are, but we cannot get at them. Fichte (1762-1814) put aside even the Kantian things in themselves. What is the use of them, since we cannot get at them? The only thing we know about them is that we know nothing about them. It is the I the Self, that makes the world. The world is whatsoever self-consciousness makes it; and self-consciousness is the Moral Will, the will to act nobly, dutifully, steadfastly, di vinely. The human nature of .esus, being part of the world, in Fichte s Christol is a limitation of the Absolute, the pro jection of Moral Will, the I, the Self, into time and space. The incarnation is the union of God and man by self-consciousness. The Deity of Christ is impersonal.