NOTES.

The Greek text after EUSEBIUS, in his Epist. ad Cæsareenses (as preserved by Athanasius), and the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, which indorsed both the original and the enlarged form of the Nicene Creed. See Vol. I. p. 28, note 3. The variations are carefully given by WALCH, pp. 87 sqq., and HAHN, pp. 105-107. For a Syriac version, see CASPARI, Vol. I. p. 100. Dr. HORT (Dissertations, p. 54) ingeniously but artificially connects μovoyεvй with Θεόν (τοῦτ ̓ ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός being parenthetical), and thus derives from the Nicene Creed a traditional support for the famous reading povoyevns Seós instead of the received text μovoyevns viós, John i. 18.

2 The Latin form from HILARIUS (Bishop of Poitiers, called the Athanasius of the West; died 368): De Synodis sive de fide Orientalium, § 84, Opp. ed. Constant. Veron. Tom. II. p. 510, and Fragm. II. ex opere historico, § 27, 1. c. p. 643. WALCH (pp. 80-92) gives also other Latin versions from Lucifer, Rufinus, Leo M., Marius Mercator, etc., and HAHN (pp. 108-110) notes the principal variations.

3 The received text, as sanctioned by the Fourth, or previously by the Second Ecumenical Council, omits the words τοῦτ ̓ ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός and Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, and the concluding anathema, but adds the important clauses after the Holy Spirit.

APPENDIX.

OTHER ORIENTAL CREEDS OF THE NICENE AGE.

With the Nicene Creed should be compared several similar Greek forms of the fourth century (see above, pp. 24-40, and Hahn, pp. 42-59), especially the following:

(1.) The Creed of CESAREA, which EUSEBIUS read at Nicæa, 325, as his own baptismal creed. It omits Seòv áλnivóv and ouoovolov, but otherwise agrees nearly with the first Nicene Creed till avevμa üytov, and is the basis of it.

(2.) The Creed of JERUSALEM, which CYRIL of Jerusalem taught in his Catechetical Lectures before 350. It likewise omits oμoovorov, but has after ❝ytov vevua the articles: 'In (eis repeated) one baptism for the remission of sins, and in one holy catholic Church, and the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life everlasting;' resembling in this conclusion the later Constantinopolitan Creed, of which it seems to be the chief basis.

(3.) Two Creeds of EPIPHANIUS, a longer and a shorter one, recorded in his App ont 374. Both contain the whole Nicene Creed, with the concluding anathema one formula), and at the same time almost literally the additional articl Ghost,' which were incorporated in the Nicene Creed by the Synod s ing that these were current in the Churches before 381.

(4.) The Creed of ARIUS, which he delivered to the Empero is recorded by Socrates and Sozomenus (also u Ma Hahn, p. 192; and Denzinger, p. 8). It shrewd the the Council of Nicæa, confesses Christ as a sui, ôn đới TỨC ἅγιον πνεῦμα the articles: καὶ εἰς σαρκὸς αναστασιν, και εις ζωήν εἰς βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν, καὶ εἰς μίαν και οι κακών των τοῦ θεοῦ, περάτων.

III. SYMBOLUM CHALCEDONENSE.

THE SYMBOL OF CHALCEDON.

Oct. 22d, 451.

Επόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πα- We, then, following the holy Faτράσιν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν thers, all with one consent, teach υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν men to confess one and the same συμφώνως ἅπαντες ἐκδιδάσκομεν, τέ- Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the λειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι καὶ τέλειον same perfect in Godhead and also τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι, θεὸν ἀλη- perfect in manhood; truly God and ῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς τὸν αὐ- truly man, of a reasonable [rationτὸν, ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώ- al] soul and body; consubstantial ματος, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ [coessential] with the Father acτὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιον τὸν cording to the Godhead, and conαὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, substantial with us according to the κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον ἡμῖν χωρὶς ἁμαρ- Manhood; in all things like unto us, τίας· πρὸ αἰώνων μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς without sin; begotten before all ages γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, ἐπ' of the Father according to the Godἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν αὐτὸν head, and in these latter days, for us δι' ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτη- and for our salvation, born of the ρίαν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, acΘεατόκου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρω- cording to the Manhood, one and πότητα, ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χρι- the same Christ, Son, Lord, Onlyστόν, υἱόν, κύριον, μονογενῆ, ἐκ δύο begotten, to be acknowledged in φύσεων [ἐν δύο φύσεσιν], ἀσυγχύ- two natures, inconfusedly, unτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, changeably indivisibly, insepara ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον· οὐδα- bly, the distinction of natures beμοῦ τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνη- ing by no means taken away by the ρημένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, σωζομένης δὲ union, but rather the property of μᾶλλον τῆς ἰδιότητος ἑκατέρας φύ- each nature being preserved, and σεως καὶ εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν concurring in one Person and one ὑπόστασιν συντρεχούσης, οὐκ εἰς δύο Subsistence, not parted or divided πρόσωπα μεριζόμενον ἢ διαιρούμε- into two persons, but one and the νον, ἀλλ ̓ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ same Son, and only begotten, God μονογενῆ, θεὸν λόγον, κύριον Ἰησοῦν the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as

4

Χριστόν· καθάπερ ἄνωθεν οἱ προφῆ-the prophets from the beginning

ται περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐξεπαίδευσε καὶ

[have declared] concerning him, 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.

SYMBOLUM CHALCEDONENSE. VERSIO LATINA.

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 opoç ric iv Xaλendóvi TETáρTηg Zuvódov, Act. V. in MANSI, Conc. Tom. VII. p. 115. We have inserted iv dúo púoroiv (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

Against Apollinaris, who denied that Christ had a Yuxǹ λoyɩký, anima rationalis, or vous, TVεuμa, and who reduced the Incarnation to the assumption of a human body (σwμa) with an animal soul (4vxi āλoyoç), 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.

The predicate Georókos, 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 karà rǹv åv‡pwñórηra (secundum humanitatem), in distinction from karà τýv Jeótηta (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 λoyog äσαρкoç), but of his incarnate person, or the Logos united to humanity (the λóyoç čvσapкoç). 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 9ɛOTÓKOÇ, 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 púσeσiv, 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 ik dúo pioɛwv. But for this very reason the Orientals, and also the Roman delegates, protested with one voice against ik, and insisted upon another formula with ir, 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 is is the accurate and original expression, and is a concession to Monophysitism; that it also agrees better (?) with the verb yvwpilav (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 iv duo puotoiV 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 in duo puoewv 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.

• ȧovyxúτwc, inconfuse, and árρéπτwç, immutabiliter (without confusion, without conversion or change), are directed against Eutychianism, which mixes and confounds the human and the divine natures in Christ (σúyxvoiç), 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 púoi ovvIetos), 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 cotókoç 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 peapróg and Xárpŋs, and Aphthartodoceta).

❝ácia perwç, 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 ɛorókoç, 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. 335– 346 (German and Latin), partly also in Denzinger, Enchir. p. 43.