Χριστόν· καθάπερ ἄνωθεν οἱ προφῆ-the prophets from the beginning ται περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς ὁ κύ- [have declared] concerning him, ριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐξεπαίδευσε καὶ and the Lord Jesus Christ himself τὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῖν καραδέδωκε has taught us, and the Creed of the σύμβολον. holy Fathers has handed down to us.

Sequentes igitur sanctos patres, unum eundemque confiteri FILIUM et DOMINUM NOSTRUM JESUM CHRISTUM consonanter omnes docemus, eundem perfectum in deitate et eundem perfectum in humanitate; Deum verum et hominem verum eundem ex anima rationali et corpore; consubstantialem Patri secundum deitatem, consubstantialem nobis eundem secundum humanitatem; 'per omnia nobis similem, absque peccato' (Heb. iv.): ante secula quidem de Patre genitum secundum deitatem; in novissimis autem diebus eundem propter nos et propter nostram salutem ex Maria virgine, Dei genitrice secundum humanitatem; unum eundemque Christum, Filium, Dominum, unigenitum, in duabus naturis INCONFUSE, IMMUTABILITER, INDIVISE, INSEPERABILITER agnoscendum: nusquam sublata differentia naturarum propter unitionem, magisque salva proprietate utriusque naturæ, et in unam personam atque subsistentiam concurrente: non in duas personas partitum aut divisum, sed unum eundemque Filium et unigenitum, Deum verbum, Dominum Jesum Christum; sicut ante prophetæ de eo et ipse nos Jesus Christus erudivit et patrum nobis symbolum tradidit.

NOTES.

The Greek text, together with the Latin version, is taken from the öpoç rñç iv Xadkηdóvi Teráping Zuvódov, Act. V. in MANSI, Conc. Tom. VII. p. 115. We have inserted ¿v dúo púσtow (see note 4). There are several other Latin versions which Mansi gives, Tom. VII. pp. 115 and 751-758, with the various readings. See also Hahn, 1. c. pp. 117 sqq.

The Creed is preceded in the acts of the Council by an express confirmation of the Nicene Creed in both forms, 'the Creed of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers of Nicæa,' and 'the Creed of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers who were assembled at Constantinople.' The Fathers of Chalcedon declare that 'this wise and saving Creed [of Nicæa] would be sufficient for the full acknowledgment and confirmation of the true religion; for it teaches completely the perfect doctrine concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and fully explains the Incarnation of the Lord to those who receive it faithfully.' The addition of a new Creed is justified by the subsequent Christological heresies (Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism). After stating it, the Synod solemnly prohibits, on pain of deposi

tion and excommunication, the setting forth of any other Creed for those who are desirous of turning to the acknowledgment of the truth from Heathenism and Judaism.'

1

1 Against Apollinaris, who denied that Christ had a vyǹ λoyɩý, anima rationalis, or vovç, Vεйμа, and who reduced the Incarnation to the assumption of a human body (ouua) with an animal soul (vyÿ äλoyoç), inhabited by the Divine Logos. But the rational spirit of man requires salvation as much as the body.

'Oμoovσios, consubstantialis (al. coessentialis), is used in both clauses, though with a shade of difference. Christ's homoousia with the Father implies numerical unity, or identity of essence (God being one in being, or monoousios); Christ's homoousia with men means only generic unity, or equality of nature.

4

3 The predicate EOTÓKOÇ, the Bringer-forth of God, Dei genitrix (al. quæ Deum peperit, or even divini numinis creatrix), is directed against Nestorius, and was meant originally not so much to exalt the Virgin Mary, as to assert the true divinity of Christ and the realness of the Incarnation. Basil of Seleucia: Θεὸν σαρκωθέντα τεκοῦσα Θεοτόκος ὀνομάζεται. It is immediately after qualified by the phrase кarà тηv åv‡ρwwórŋra (secundum humanitatem), in distinction from karà rǹv Irórŋta (secundum deitatem). This is a very important limitation, and necessary to guard against Mariolatry, and the heathenish, blasphemous, and contradictory notion that the uncreated, eternal God can be born in time. Mary was the mother not merely of the human nature of Jesus of Nazareth, but of the theanthropic person of Jesus Christ; yet not of his eternal Godhead (the Aoyoç ãσapкoç), but of his incarnate person, or the Logos united to humanity (the λóyoç ivσapкoç). In like manner, the subject of the Passion was the theanthropic person; yet not according to his divine nature, which in itself is incapable of suffering, but according to his human nature, which was the organ of suffering. There is no doubt, however, that the unscriptural terms torókoç, Dei genitrix, Deipara, mater Dei, which remind one of the heathen mothers of gods, have greatly promoted Mariolatry, which aided in the defeat of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus, 431. It is safer to adhere to the New Testament designation of Mary as μήτηρ Ἰησοῦ, οι μήτηρ τοῦ Κυρίου (Luke i. 43). 'Ev dúo púœɛoi, and all the Latin translations, in duabus naturis (only the Roman editors in the margin read ex d. n.), are directed against Eutyches. The present Greek text reads, it is true, ik dúo púσɛwv, from two natures; but this signifies, and, according to the connection, can only signify, essentially the same thing; though, separately taken, it admits also of an Eutychian and Monophysite interpretation, namely, that Christ has arisen from the confluence of two natures, and since the act of the Incarnation, or unition of both, has only one nature. Understood in that sense, Dioscurus at the Council was very willing to accept the formula i dvo picewv. But for this very reason the Orientals, and also the Roman delegates, protested with one voice against ir, and insisted upon another formula with r, which was adopted. Baur (Gesch. der Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit, I. p. 820 sq.) and Dorner (Gesch. d. Lehre v. d. Person Christi, II. p. 129) assert that ik is the accurate and original expression, and is a concession to Monophysitism; that it also agrees better (?) with the verb yvwpile (to recognize by certain tokens); but that it was from the very beginning changed by the Occidentals into iv. But, with Gieseler, Neander (iv. 988), Hefele (Conciliengesch. II. 451 sq.), Beck (Dogmengeschichte, p. 251), and Hahn (1. c. p. 118, note 6), we prefer the view that ¿v dúo púoroir was the original reading of the symbol, and that it was afterwards altered in the interest of Monophysitism. This is proved by the whole course of the proceedings at the fifth session of the Council of Chalcedon, where the expression ir duo puotwv was protested against, and is confirmed by the testimony of the Abbot Euthymius, a contemporary, and by that of Severus, Evagrius, and Leontius of Byzantium, as well as by the Latin translations. Severus, the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch since 513, charges the Fathers of Chalcedon with the inexcusable crime of having taught ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀδιαιρέτοις γνωρίζεσθαι τὸν χριστόν (see Mansi, Conc. VII. p. 839). Evagrius (H. E. II. c. 5) maintains that both formulas amount to essentially the same thing, and reciprocally condition each other. Dorner also affirms the same. His words are: 'The Latin formula has "to acknowledge Christ as Son in two natures;" the Greek has "to recognize Christ as Son from two natures," which is plainly the

same thought. The Latin formula is only a free but essentially faithful translation, only that its coloring expresses somewhat more definitely still Christ's subsisting in two natures, and is therefore more literally conformable to the Roman type of doctrine' (1. c. II. 129). From my Church History, Vol. III. p. 745 sq.

5 ȧovyxúτws, inconfuse, and årpéπτwç, immutabiliter (without confusion, without conversion or change), are directed against Eutychianism, which mixes and confounds the human and the divine natures in Christ (oúyxvoic), and teaches an absorption of the former into the latter; hence the phrases 'God is born; God suffered; God was crucified; God died.' The Monophysites (so called after the Council of Chalcedon) rejected the Eutychian theory of an absorption, but nevertheless taught only one composite nature of Christ (μía qúoiç ovvỡɛrOL), making his humanity a mere accident of the immutable divine substance, and using the liturgical shibboleth 'God has been crucified' (without a qualifying 'according to the human nature,' or 'the flesh,' as the EOTÓKoç is qualified in the Symbol of Chalcedon). Hence they were also called Theopaschites. They divided into several sects and parties on subtle and idle questions, especially the question whether Christ's body before the resurrection was corruptible or incorruptible (hence the Phthartolaters, from apróg and λárpŋs, and Aphthartodocetæ).

6

• ȧdiaipέrwç, indivise, ȧxwpiorwc, inseparabiliter (without division, without separation), both in opposition to Nestorianism, which so emphasized the duality of natures, and the continued distinction between the human and the divine in Christ, as to lose sight of the unity of person, and to substitute for a real Incarnation a mere conjunction (ovvápua), a moral union or intimate friendship between the Divine Logos and the man Jesus. Hence, also, the opposition to the term Jɛorókoç, with which the Nestorian controversy began.

With the Symbol of Chalcedon should be compared the semi-symbolical Epistola dogmatica of Pope LEO I. to the Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople, which contains a lengthy and masterly exposition of the orthodox Christology against the heresy of Eutyches, and was read and approved by the Council of Chalcedon, as the voice of Peter speaking through the Archbishop of old Rome.' It is dated June 13, 449, and is found in the works of Leo M. (Ep. 24 in Quesnel's ed., Ep. 28 in the ed. Ballerini), in Mansi, Conc. Tom. V. pp. 1366-90 (Latin and Greek, with the different readings), Hardouin, Conc. Tom. II. pp. 290–300 (also Latin and Greek, but without the variations), Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vol. II. pp. 335346 (German and Latin), partly also in Denzinger, Enchir. p. 43.

IV. SYMBOLUM QUICUNQUE.
THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

THE LATIN ORIGINAL.
1. Quicunque vult salvus esse:
ante omnia opus est, ut teneat ca-
tholicam fidem.

2. Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit: absque dubio in æternum peribit.

OLD TRANSLATION REVISED.

1. Whosoever will be saved: be

fore all things it is necessary that

he hold the Catholic Faith:

2. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. Fides autem catholica hæc est: 3. And the Catholic Faith is this: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et That we worship one God in TrinTrinitatem in Unitate veneremur; ity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neque confundentes personas: neque substantiam separan

tes.

5. Alia est enim persona Patris: alia Filii: alia Spiritus Sancti.

6. Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas: æqualis gloria, coæterna majes

tas.

7. Qualis Pater: talis Filius: talis [et] Spiritus Sanctus.

8. Increatus Pater: increatus Filius: increatus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.

9. Immensus Pater: immensus Filius: immensus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.

4. Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance [Essence].

5. For there is one Person of the Father: another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is: such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost.

8. The Father uncreate [uncreated]: the Son uncreate [uncreated]: and the Holy Ghost uncreate [uncreated].

9. The Father incomprehensible [unlimited]: the Son incomprehensible [unlimited]: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible [unlimited, or infinite].