The Fifth Session of Chalcedon

The Fifth Session of Chalcedon

(Acts of Chalcedon, Fifth Session of Chalcedon, pp. 183 – 205)

INTRODUCTION

We come now to the most momentous session of the council – the fifth session of 22 October 451, which achieved the great work of the council, the production of a new definition of faith. The meeting began with the submission of a draft definition by the committee set up in the second session; this satisfied the great majority of the bishops, but was criticized by the Roman delegates and some of the Syrians for failing to teach unambiguously that there are two natures, Godhead and manhood, in Christ. The bishops were unimpressed by this criticism, but it was taken up by the imperial representatives who chaired the session. When deadlock ensued, the emperor was consulted, who told the bishops to agree to a suitable amendment of the draft, threatening otherwise to entrust the matter to a western council – that is, to a Roman council presided over by Pope Leo. The bishops yielded and the draft was accordingly amended, and approved by acclamation. The minutes bring out the politicization of doctrinal debate, with the result that the chief argument against the draft was that the disgraced Dioscorus could accept it, and the way in which even on a doctrinal issue episcopal wishes had to yield to imperial policy.

COMMENTARY

The minutes of the fifth act, or session, give a frank and dramatic account of a session where the officials and the bishops were for a long time at loggerheads over the wording of the Definition. Despite the honesty of the record in this respect, it is clear that there are substantial omissions. The text of the draft definition is suppressed (3); the objections of John of Germanicia and of the Roman legates to the draft are not detailed (4, 9); no reply is recorded to Anatolius of Constantinople’s objection that Dioscorus had not been condemned as a heretic (14); it is scarcely credible that after the production of the revised version of the draft the bishops were content simply to approve it by acclamation (35). Above all, the sheer brevity of the minutes indicates that much of the discussion has simply been omitted. What we have, however, remains the most significant section in the entire Acts, both for an understanding of the significance of the Definition and for a revelation of the means by which the imperial will prevailed.¹

¹ The following analysis of the Definition concentrates on the stages of its redaction. For the broader theological context and the relation of the Definition to the theology of Cyril of Alexandria see General Introduction, vol. 1,56–75.

The draft definition

At the second session of 10 October the chairman had insisted that the task of the council was to ‘produce a pure exposition of the faith’ (II. 2) and that a committee of bishops was to be set up to ‘deliberate in common about the faith and then make their decisions known to all so that every dispute may be resolved’ (II. 6) – in other words, to draw up a doctrinal definition. The bishops reacted with apparently unanimous disapproval, through loyalty to the Creed of Nicaea as the definitive statement of the faith and also, doubtless, out of fear of what a new definition might contain. When, however, at the beginning of the fifth session the committee presented a draft definition, it was received by the council with enthusiasm. Anatolius of Constantinople (who presumably chaired the committee) referred to an informal meeting of the previous day, when the draft had been shown to the bishops and won general approval (7–8). Clearly, the vast majority of the bishops were hugely relieved to find that the Definition was not, in their view, contentious.

The text of the draft was not included in the published minutes, but it can be recovered with reasonable confidence. It is likely to have differed from the version finally approved (30–34) in only a few details, for two reasons: only a few changes were demanded, and the work of revision was carried out speedily, in the course of the session. Already in its draft form, the main sequence of the Definition will have followed uncontroversially from the proceedings of the second and fourth sessions, with their confirmation of the preceding ecumenical councils of 325, 381 and 431 (including the creeds of the first two and the two conciliar letters of Cyril of Alexandria associated with the third) and also of the Tome of Leo.² We may note a particular emphasis on the Nicene Creed and the letters of Cyril: since Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius (I. 240) was devoted to showing that the Nicene Creed itself proved Nestorius a heretic, the implication is that, as at the Council of Ephesus of 431, it was this letter, as an interpretation of the creed, that was seen as the key exposition of the church’s faith in Christ.³ To this the Definition added the contribution of the Tome of Leo in condemning Eutyches for his apparent denial of the true humanity of Christ and assertion of a blending of natures in Christ, leaving Christ neither truly divine nor truly human.⁴ It was only after an extended account of these great authoritative texts and the heresies they condemned that the Definition proceeded to give a positive summary of sound Christological teaching. It was this alone that proved contentious; it is a mistake, however, to treat this final section as the true Definition and the rest as mere preamble.

Two criticisms of the draft definition are explicit in the minutes. The objection was made in episcopal acclamations that Mary’s title of Theotokos had to be inserted into the Definition (8, 12). It may seem so odd that this could have been omitted that there is some plausibility in the suggestion, supported by some of the best scholars on the council, that the acclamations meant not that the title had been omitted but that it should be retained in the Definition despite a demand for its deletion made (conjecturally) by John of Germanicia (the birthplace of Nestorius), as spokesman for the Antiochene party (4).⁵ But it is not probable that John proposed the deletion of the formula: moderate Antiochenes, such as Theodore of Mopsuestia, John of Antioch and Theodoret, had never found Theotokos problematic, and it had been included in the Antiochene statement of faith drawn up in 431 (ACO 1.1.7 p. 70) that was to become the Formula of Reunion.⁶ The most natural and plausible interpretation of the Greek remains that Theotokos was not included in the draft definition and that this is what displeased the bishops.⁷

The omission is certainly unexpected, but it can be explained as an accidental consequence of the draft’s taking as the basis for its Christological formula, as we shall shortly argue, the confession of faith of Flavian of Constantinople, which likewise omitted Theotokos, doubtless because the propriety of the expression was no longer the point at issue.⁸

Secondly, it is quite certain that the draft definition did not contain an unambiguous statement of the existence in Christ of two distinct natures, divine and human. At one point the chairman observed, ‘Dioscorus said that the reason for Flavian’s deposition was that he said there are two natures, but the Definition has “from two natures”’ (3; see also 26–8). Since the Greek for ‘from’ is  κ, while it was replaced by  ν (that Christ is ‘in’ two natures) in the formula finally approved, it has been wittily observed that the whole controversy ignited by the Definition was over a single letter. In fact both formulae were ambiguous. The ‘from’ formula could indeed be understood to teach the existence in Christ of two natures, which is what Flavian must have intended at I. 271 and which is why Eutyches was reluctant to accept the expression (see I. 489n.); but it could also be understood to imply the Alexandrian formula that Christ is ‘one out of two’ – that while Christ is constituted by the coming together of two distinct elements, the result of the union is a single identity which, despite its possession of a wide range of different and contrasting attributes, is not to be defined in terms of a continuing duality.⁹ Meanwhile, subsequent developments within Chalcedonian Christology were to show that the ‘in’ formula was equally open to a variety of interpretations (see n. 15 below). Finally, it has been observed that a key clause in the final version of the Definition – ‘the difference of the natures being in no way destroyed by the union, but rather the distinctive character of each nature being preserved and coming together into one person and one hypostasis’ – is a genitive absolute clause that is syntactically intrusive, interrupting as it does a series of phrases in apposition in the accusative.

This suggests that this clause was a lastminute addition – even if the formula ‘one person and one hypostasis’ is likely, in a different syntactical context, to have been present already in this part of the draft definition, for a reason I am about to give.

If we take these three points together, and presume that little else in the draft was changed, they suggest as the wording of the draft definition something that is strikingly close to a previously existing document – the confession of faith that Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople read out at the Home Synod of 448 (I. 271):

We hold and have always held that our Lord Jesus Christ, the onlybegotten son of God, is perfect God and perfect man made up of a rational soul and body, begotten from the Father without beginning before the ages in respect of the Godhead, and the same at the end and in the last times for us and for our salvation born from Mary the Virgin in respect of the manhood, consubstantial with the Father in respect of the Godhead and consubstantial with his mother in respect of the manhood. For we confess that Christ is from two natures after the incarnation, as we confess in one hypostasis and one person one Christ, one Son, one Lord.¹⁰

What could have been more appropriate for a council concerned to vindicate Flavian of Constantinople than for it to adopt his own confession of faith?

² The letters of Cyril called ‘canonical’ (I. 1072) or ‘conciliar’ (IV. 9.12; V. 34) were the two read out at the first and second sessions – the Second Letter to Nestorius and the Letter to John of Antioch (I. 240, 246; II. 18–19). The Tome of Leo is given at II. 22.

³ Note how in the fourth session it was primarily the Second Letter to Nestorius that was treated as the authoritative non-credal document against which Leo’s Tome was to be tested (see IV. 9n.).

⁴ See vol. 1, 116 for an argument that Eutyches had been wrongly interpreted and unfairly condemned, though it is notable that after Chalcedon the miaphysites did not continue to defend him.

⁵ So Chadwick 2001, 578, following de Halleux 1976, 156 and 166. The suggestion had been made many years earlier by Bolotov 1917, 289.

⁶ Some of the Syrians remained loyal to Nestorius and critical of Theotokos even after 433, but by 437 they had been silenced; see Chadwick 2001, 544–8.

⁷ The draft may well have mentioned rejection of Theotokos as one of the errors of Nestorius (the mention of this at the beginning of VI. 34 does not read like a late addition): what the bishops objected to was the absence of the title in the positive Christological formula with which the draft definition ended.

⁸ For an effective argument in favour of the view followed here, see Martzelos 1986, 94–8.

⁹ Talk of ‘one out of two’, of ‘two before and one after the union’, or of Godhead and manhood ‘coming together’ in Christ, did not mean that his manhood existed prior to the union, but that it can, for the sake of conceptual clarity, be analysed ‘prior to’ (that is, in abstraction from) the union in which alone it exists. Such analysis distinguishes two natures in Christ while respecting the fact that in reality they form a single existent.

¹⁰ Flavian repeated the same credo in a letter sent to Theodosius II in December 448, where he supplemented it, however, with the statement, ‘We do not refuse to call the nature of God the Word one, albeit enfleshed and made man, because from both is one and the same Jesus Christ our Lord’ (ACO 2.1 p. 35. 20–22). Flavian’s tardy adoption of a miaphysite formula was a political manoeuvre, after his championship of the dyophysite cause at the Home Synod had exposed him to criticism.

The revision of the draft

Although the great majority of the bishops greeted the draft definition enthusiastically, the minutes inform us that there were two small but significant groups of dissentients – ‘the Romans and some of the Orientals’ (6). The latter group, consisting of Theodoret of Cyrrhus and his allies, the heirs of the Antiochene school (which by this date had limited support even in Syria itself), had as its spokesman at this session Bishop John of Germanicia, who made two recorded interventions, demanding amendments to the draft (4, 12; details of the amendments demanded are not given). His intervention served simply to anger the majority party, which responded by demanding the expulsion of the ‘Nestorians’.¹¹ Far more serious was the opposition of the Roman delegates, who demanded that the draft be brought into line with the Tome of Leo and threatened to return home immediately if this was not granted (9). The lay chairman took up their objection: both Flavian of Constantinople and Leo of Rome had insisted that there are two natures in Christ, yet the formula used in the draft – ‘from two natures’ – was not only ambiguous: it had in addition been approved by the now disgraced Dioscorus. It was fatal for the draft that Dioscorus had said at the first session, ‘I accept “from two [natures]”; I do not accept “two”’ (I. 332).

Anatolius and his committee had held a meeting of bishops on the previous day at which the draft had been approved (7, 12). It is scarcely credible that he had not taken the trouble to secure the acquiescence of the Roman delegates before presenting the draft to the council; but if so, they must have been successfully lobbied by Theodoret’s faction in the meantime. Despite the unanimity with which the bishops had solemnly approved the Tome of Leo in the fourth session, they were now in no mood to let an appeal to the Tome force on them a Christological formula that could be seen as a victory for the ‘Nestorians’. The lay chairman Anatolius decided to resolve the impasse by an appeal to the emperor.¹² After the interval required for the secretary of the imperial consistory to cross the Bosporus and back to elicit the imperial will, the emperor’s response duly arrived (22): he threatened the bishops that if they did not give way to the officials and the Roman delegates he would transfer the council to the west (i.e., to Rome), where it would of course be dominated by Pope Leo. Nothing is more amazing in the drama of this session than the fact that the bishops refused at first to yield to what was in effect an imperial command. But finally, and inevitably, the emperor’s will prevailed. The imperial representatives set up a new committee, consisting of themselves, the Roman delegates, Archbishop Anatolius, and 17 eastern bishops, who withdrew into a sidechapel (29) and after what cannot have been a long discussion returned to the nave to present their revision of the draft (30–34).¹³

What was the character of the membership of the committee (listed at 29)? Apart from Anatolius and the Roman delegates, no fewer than 13 of the remaining 18 had supported Dioscorus at Ephesus II, for which offence three of them (Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Eusebius of Ancyra) had been suspended at the end of the first session (I. 1068).¹⁴ The only bishop from Syria was Maximus of Antioch, a belligerent supporter of Cyrillian theology, consecrated bishop by Anatolius while the latter was still supporting Dioscorus. The list contains no known allies of Theodoret, while one of the other members, Basil of Trajanopolis in Rhodope (Thrace), had in the first session expressed approval of his condemnation (I. 42). It is true that Eusebius of Dorylaeum, the prosecutor of Eutyches and Dioscorus, was also on the committee; he was, however, no ally of the Antiochenes, and in this fifth session had opposed amending the draft definition to satisfy the Roman delegates (19). This was not a group likely to break away from the consensus of the council fathers in favour of the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, or to show any desire to accommodate the strongly dyophysite Christology of the Antiochene school.

The amending committee was obliged to assert a continuing duality in Christ, but the formula it used to do so – ‘acknowledged in two natures’ (replacing the ‘from two natures’ of the draft) – had been coined apparently by Basil of Seleucia (I. 169, 176, 301) on the basis of the assertion that Christ is ‘perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood’ in Cyril’s Letter to John of Antioch.¹⁵ If the duality of natures in Christ had to be asserted, this was done by using, as far as possible, Cyrillian expressions – as in the following clause, ‘the difference of the natures being in no way destroyed by the union’, taken from Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius (I. 240). The Definition proceeds to affirm Cyril’s doctrine of the unity of Christ by speaking of the two natures ‘coming together to form one person and one hypostasis’ – Cyril’s favourite doctrine (anathema to the Antiochenes) of ‘hypostatic union’ in Christ.¹⁶ In all, the Definition attempted to take the sting out of its assertion of two natures in Christ, as required by the emperor and the Roman delegates, by expressing it in language taken from Cyril and placing it in the context of a strong assertion of Christ’s oneness.¹⁷

But what of the objection to the production of a new formula that had been pressed by the bishops in the second session, namely that Canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus (I. 943) had forbidden the imposition of new creeds? Boldly, the framers of the definition, so far from shying away from it, actually incorporated this canon into the final section of the text. The meaning is that the Creed of Nicaea remains preeminent and indeed unique: the Definition is to be read as simply an authoritative exposition of what loyalty to Nicaea entails.

The minutes conclude with the bishops’ approval of the new text by acclamation (35). Considering that the ‘in two natures’ formula was controversial, since it was understood to imply a real distinction between two elements in the incarnate Christ (see, for example, I. 169–70), this acceptance appears too easy, and one may suspect that the minutes suppress some expressions of dissent and some further debate.¹⁸ As the text stands, the Definition in its final form is presented as a perfect formula that satisfied everybody. The aim of the emperor had now been achieved: the bishops had approved a new definition, and he would go down in history as the new Constantine, who supplemented the Nicene Creed with the normative formulation of the doctrine of the incarnation.

Accounts of this session by church historians used to gloss over the extent to which it testifies to the political reality of the council – the determination of the outcome by the imperial will, and the lack of episcopal freedom. The bishops had not originally wanted to produce a definition at all (see the second session); and when the draft was produced, few of them wished to amend it to please the Roman delegates. Yet the final outcome was indeed a new definition, and one that, while Cyrillian in its expression, was so worded as to be acceptable to Rome.

With hindsight the church historian is bound to judge the production of a definition a tragedy for Christian unity, leading as it did to the schism between Chalcedonian and nonChalcedonian churches that has continued to this day. At the same time, the emperor and his representatives were surely right to insist that the definition, if there was to be one, had to be acceptable to Rome. To have approved the draft definition would have been to repeat the disastrous outcome of Ephesus II; it would have initiated the great schism between east and west six centuries before it actually took place.

¹¹ John of Germanicia (in Syria Euphratensis) had been an ally of Theodoret of Cyrrhus and a promoter of the dyophysite cause since the early 430s. The fathers of Chalcedon suspected him of Nestorianism, and he was obliged, like Theodoret, to utter an anathema against Nestorius in the eighth session (VIII. 28–9). See DHGE 20, 952–3 and Diepen 1953, 72.

¹² That Anatolius immediately sided with the Roman delegates, even before the emperor had been consulted (13), may reflect the fact that he was a personal friend of Theodoret (see I. 2.1n.).

¹³ Schwartz (1921, 142) suggests, quite implausibly, that the emperor sent a preprepared text for the bishops to rubberstamp.

¹⁴ Prominent in this group was also Atticus of Nicopolis, for whose sympathies with Dioscorus see I. 298n.

¹⁵ The formula came later to be understood as equivalent to Cyril’s formula that Christ is two ‘in contemplation alone’, in other words that the duality arises in the mind that analyses Christ, while the reality is of a perfect unity of being; this interpretation was formally adopted in Canon 7 of the Council of Constantinople of 553 (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Tanner, vol. 1, 117) and is generally held by Eastern Orthodox theologians today. But it is clear from I. 170, 176, 303 that the formula was understood in the midfifth century to assert the distinction between the natures as not merely a mental construct but an objective fact (see de Halleux 1994, 464–6). This is why the formula satisfied the demand by the Roman delegates and the imperial representatives that the Definition had to define unambiguously that there are two natures in Christ, even if the exact meaning of ‘nature’ is not defined and admits a minimizing interpretation).

¹⁶ The words ‘the distinctive character of each nature being preserved and coming together into one person and one hypostasis’ also echoes a clause in Leo’s Tome, but note that the Greek word for ‘comes together’ (συντρε σης) is a piece of Cyrillian vocabulary, in contrast to the word used in the translation of Leo’s equivalent word (συνι σης), and that the key phrase ‘and one hypostasis’ is not in Leo.

¹⁷ See vol.1,69–70 for an argument that the Definition treats the two natures as two sets of attributes rather than two distinct existents. Note also that the emphasis in the key dyophysite clause, literally translated as ‘one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Onlybegotten, acknowledged in two natures’, would be more clearly conveyed by the paraphrase, ‘It is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Onlybegotten, who is acknowledged in two natures’; even here the stress is on unity not duality.

¹⁸ It is possible, however, that the bishops were inhibited by fears that further opposition might lead the emperor to carry out his threat to transfer the council to Rome.

Appendix: the variant version of the Nicene Creed

The authentic text of the Nicene Creed (N), as approved at the council of 325, was read out in the second session of Chalcedon (II. 11), and runs as follows:

We believe in one God, Father, Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten from the Father as onlybegotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being, both those on heaven and those on earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down, was enfleshed and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. Those who say, ‘There was when he was not’, and ‘Before being begotten he was not’, and that he came into being from things that are not, or assert that the Son of God is from another hypostasis or substance or is changeable or alterable, these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.

This is the text that we would expect to have been incorporated in the Definition (at V. 32), and it is indeed the one that appears in the best Greek witnesses to the text (though sometimes with certain additions, such as ‘from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin’ and ‘crucified for us under Pontius Pilate’, taken from the Creed of Constantinople – C). However, we find a revision of the text in the Latin version of the Definition, which makes altogether more substantial changes in the first few lines:

We believe in one God, Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ the onlybegotten Son of God, who was begotten from the Father before all ages, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, who for us men and for our salvation …¹⁹

Schwartz (1926) argued that it is this text that represents the version of N originally included in the Chalcedonian Definition. His main evidence consisted of the early witnesses to the text, older than the extant Greek edition;²⁰ these include not only the Latin edition of the Acts, even before its revision by Rusticus, but also a summary of the sixth session, preserved independently in Latin translation in the Collectio Vaticana, which describes itself at the end of the document as ‘issued by Veronicianus and Constantinus dedicated agentes in rebus, secretaries of the sacred consistory’ – two officials who appear in the minutes of Chalcedon.²¹ Schwartz suggested that this is the text that was sent by Bishop Julian of Cos to Pope Leo in response to his letter of 11 March 453 (ep. 113). If this deviant version is indeed the text inserted in the Definition, the question arises of why the drafters of the Definition should have thought it necessary to tamper with the text of N. Schwartz suggested that their purpose was to bring it into line with the wording of C (quoted in the Definition immediately afterwards). The claim made in the Definition itself is that C was produced ‘for the uprooting of the heresies which had then sprung up’ (31), which accounts well for its addition of a full article on the Holy Spirit but does not explain or justify its many small departures from N in the earlier sections of the creed.²² By ironing out most of these anomalies, partly by small deletions from C (for which see n. 49 below) but mainly by changes to N, the drafters hoped to clarify what was new and significant in C.

A powerful riposte to Schwartz’s thesis was made a decade later by Joseph Lebon (1936). He queried the reliability of the text in the Collectio Vaticana, arguing that it cannot be the version of the Acts sent to Rome in response to Leo’s letter of 453, since Leo had asked for the full text of the minutes (translated into Latin), not just for a summary of two sessions, which is all that this particular text provides.²³ He queried the coherence of Schwartz’s account of why the texts of N and C were altered in the way he supposed: it is not clear why an assimilation of the two texts might have been thought necessary, and some of the changes (e.g., the deletion of ‘light from light’ from both N and C) are not accounted for by Schwartz’s hypothesis and can only have been accidental. Finally, he argued plausibly that, if the fathers of Chalcedon had tampered with N so outrageously, this would certainly have been pointed out by subsequent critics of the Definition. He could have appealed to the incident in the first session of Chalcedon when Bishop Diogenes of Cyzicus accused Eutyches of heresy for not admitting the addition of ‘from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin’ after the words ‘was enfleshed’, to which the Egyptian bishops responded by insisting that no additions could be made to the creed (I. 160–63). Lebon’s argument has been widely accepted.²⁴

An important factor to bear in mind is that, as Lebon shows at length, N was already circulating in a variety of versions, of which indeed C is a prize example.²⁵ In an anthology of heretical passages from Nestorius read out at the first session of Chalcedon (I. 944.4) we find him citing N with the addition of ‘from the Holy Spirit’ (after ‘enfleshed’); we have just noted the similar addition in the version of the creed to which Diogenes of Cyzicus appealed in the first session.²⁶ This consideration both strengthens and weakens Lebon’s case. On the one hand, it makes it easier to understand how changes could have been made to the text after Chalcedon, almost accidentally. On the other hand, it undermines Lebon’s initially plausible argument that the anti-Chalcedonians would have protested vociferously if the Definition had contained a variant version of N; as Lebon himself points out,²⁷ antiChalcedonian controversialists, such as Philoxenus, were happy to use expanded versions of N. It was, after all, the opponents of Chalcedon who at the end of the fifth century were the first to insert the creed into the liturgy, and the text they adopted was not N but C, accepted not because of its authorization (actual or supposed) at the council of 381, for which they had no particular respect, but as an acceptable version of N.²⁸ Against this Lebon urges that anti-Chalcedonians who tolerated some additions to N would nevertheless have protested against changes as great as those made in the Definition according to Schwartz.²⁹ But why then did they insert C into the liturgy as an acceptable version of N?

At the end of the day one’s choice between the positions of Schwartz and Lebon is likely to depend on one’s judgement of the reliability of the Latin version of the Acts. The way in which, while preserving the authentic texts of N and C at II. 11–14, all the successive editions of the Latin Acts replace these texts with a variant version at V. 32–3, provides the strong kernel of Schwartz’s case. The solid contribution of Lebon is, I would suggest, not his attempt to refute Schwartz but his demonstration that variant versions of N abounded. This makes it possible to offer an altogether less Machiavellian explanation of the changes. There is no reason to suppose that all that the drafters of the Definition had in front of them were the authentic texts read out in the second session. The changes they made are easier to explain if they had to hand an already existent text in which N had been altered in line with C; in preferring this conflated text to the version of N that we recognize as the more authentic, they were doubtless influenced by the consideration adduced by Schwartz (the desirability of reducing the differences between N and C to a minimum), but they will not have thought of themselves as altering the text of the creed. (They did make small changes to C, but this text was less familiar and less authoritative.) We may share Lebon’s incredulity at it being thought necessary to tamper with the text, since the essential agreement of N and C is already unmistakable in their authentic versions; but all we need to conclude is that, with two alternative versions of N in front of them, the editors preferred the one closest to C.

¹⁹ Schwartz’s edition follows Rusticus in inserting ‘light from light’ before ‘true God from true God’, but the versio antiqua lacks these words.

²⁰ Schwartz’s striking claim that all the witnesses to the text in the hundred years between Chalcedon and Constantinople II (553) give the variant form of the text is not, however, quite true: the authentic form comes in the Florilegium Cyrillianum (‘F’ in Schwartz’s apparatus), which cannot be later than 510.

²¹ Collectio Vaticana 6.2, ACO 2.2 pp. 107–9. For Veronicianus and Constantinus at Chalcedon, see our index of names.

²² Modern scholars consider C to be not a derivative of N but a parallel version of the creed, with some insertions from N. See Kelly 1972, 301–5.

²³ The argument is not wholly cogent. It is clear that the complete Acts were not translated into Latin at this date, yet some response must have been made to Leo’s request; this document, which summarizes the third and sixth sessions, could have formed part of such a response.

²⁴ See Hall 1997, esp. 23–8, and Chadwick 2001, 580.

²⁵ A particularly interesting, and unusual, version was that adopted by the Church of Persia at the Council of SeleuciaCtesiphon in 410, which intriguingly contains the earliest occurrence in credal history of the filioque: ‘We acknowledge the living and holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who [is] from the Father and the Son.’ See Bruns 2000.

²⁶ Lebon 1936, 834–50 and 858–9 provides further evidence of the use of variant forms of N even before Chalcedon.

²⁷ Lebon 1936, 866–70.

²⁸ See Kelly 1972, 348–51.

²⁹ Lebon 1936, 872, n. 1.

PROCEEDINGS

1. In the consulship of our lord Marcian perpetual Augustus and the one to be designated, ten days before the Kalends of November,³⁰ at Chalcedon, by order of our most divine and pious lord Marcian perpetual Augustus, there assembled in the most holy church of the holy martyr Euphemia (1) the most magnificent and glorious Anatolius, magister militum, former consul and patrician, (2) the most magnificent and glorious Palladius, prefect of the {sacred}³¹ praetorians, and (3) the most magnificent and glorious Vincomalus, master of the divine offices.

There also assembled: (1–3) the most devout bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius and the most devout presbyter Boniface, representing the most holy Leo archbishop of Senior Rome, (4) Anatolius the most devout archbishop of renowned Constantinople, (5) Maximus the most devout archbishop of Antioch in Syria, (6) Juvenal the most devout bishop of Jerusalem,

(7) Quintillus the most devout bishop of Heraclea in Macedonia, representing Anastasius the most devout bishop of Thessalonica, (8) Thalassius the most devout bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, (9) Stephen the most devout bishop of Ephesus, (10) Lucian the most devout bishop of Bizye, representing Cyriacus the most Godbeloved bishop of Heraclea in Thrace, (11) Eusebius the most devout bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, (12) Diogenes the most devout bishop of Cyzicus, (13) Peter the most devout bishop of Corinth, (14) Florentius the most devout bishop of Sardis, (15) Eunomius the most devout bishop of Nicomedia, (16) Anastasius the most devout bishop of Nicaea, (17) Julian the most devout bishop of the city of Cos, himself also representing the apostolic see of Senior Rome, (18) Eleutherius the most devout bishop of Chalcedon, (19) Basil the most devout bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, (20) Meletius the most devout bishop of Larissa, representing Domnus the most devout bishop of Apamea in Syria, (21) Amphilochius the most devout bishop of Side, (22) Theodore the most devout bishop of Tarsus, (23) Cyrus the most devout bishop of Anazarbus, (24) Constantine the most devout bishop of Bostra, (25) Photius the most devout bishop of Tyre, (26) Theodore the most devout bishop of Damascus, (27) Stephen the most devout bishop of Hierapolis, (28) Nonnus the most devout bishop of Edessa, (29) Symeon the most devout bishop of Amida, (30) Epiphanius the most devout bishop, representing Olympius the most devout bishop of Constantia, (31) John the most devout bishop of Sebasteia, (32) Seleucus the most devout bishop of Amaseia, (33) Constantine the most devout bishop of Melitene, (34) Patricius the most devout bishop of Tyana, (35) Peter the most devout bishop of Gangra, (36) Eustathius the most devout bishop of Berytus, (37) Apragmonius the most devout bishop of Tieum, representing {Calogerus} the most devout bishop {of Claudiopolis},

(38) {Atarbius the most devout bishop of Trapezus, representing} Dorotheus {the most devout bishop}³² of Neocaesarea, (39) Photinus, archdeacon, representing Theoctistus the most devout bishop of Pessinus, (40) Romanus the most devout bishop of Myra, (41) Critonianus the most devout bishop of Aphrodisias in Caria, (42) Nunechius the most devout bishop of Laodicea in Phrygia, (43) Marinianus the most devout bishop of Synnada, (44) Onesiphorus the most devout bishop of Iconium, (45) Pergamius the most devout bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, (46) Epiphanius the most devout bishop of Perge, (47) Atticus the most devout bishop of Nicopolis in Epirus, (48) Martyrius the most devout bishop of Gortyna, (49) Luke the most devout bishop of Dyrrachium, (50) Vigilantius the most devout bishop of Larissa in Thessaly, (51) Francion the most devout bishop of Philippopolis, (52) Sebastian the most devout bishop of Beroe, (53) Basil the most devout bishop of Trajanopolis, (54) Trypho the most devout bishop of Chios, representing John bishop of Rhodes, (55) Theoctistus the most devout bishop of Beroea, (56) Gerontius the most devout bishop of Seleucia in Syria, (57) Eusebius, presbyter, representing Macarius the most devout bishop of Laodicea in Syria, (58) Eusebius the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum, and the rest of the holy and ecumenical council convoked in the city of Chalcedon by decree of our most divine and pious lord Marcian.

               When all had taken their seats in front of the rails of the holy sanctuary, the most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Please make known to us what you have determined about the faith.’

               Asclepiades deacon of the great church of Constantinople read out the definition, which it was decided not to include in these minutes.³³

               After the reading, while some raised objections, John the most devout bishop of Germanicia, {coming across to the centre,}³⁴ said: ‘The definition is not a good one and needs to be made precise.’

               Anatolius the most devout archbishop of Constantinople said to the holy council: ‘Does the definition satisfy you?’

               All the most devout bishops apart from the Romans and some of the Orientals exclaimed: ‘The definition satisfies us all. This is the faith of the fathers. Whoever holds a view contrary to this is a heretic. If anyone holds a different view, let him be anathema. Drive out the Nestorians. This definition satisfies everyone. Let those who do not anathematize Nestorius leave the council.’

               Anatolius the most Godbeloved bishop of Constantinople said: ‘Did the definition of the faith satisfy everyone yesterday?’

               The most devout bishops said: ‘The definition satisfied everyone. We do not hold a different belief. Anathema to whoever holds a different belief. This is the faith of the fathers. The definition has satisfied God. This is the

faith of the orthodox. May the faith not suffer from chicanery. Write “Holy Mary the Theotokos”, and add this to the creed.’³⁵

9.³⁶ Paschasinus and Lucentius the most devout bishops and Boniface the most devout presbyter, representatives of the apostolic see of Rome, said: ‘If they do not agree with the letter of the apostolic and most blessed man Archbishop Leo, order letters to be given us so that we may return home, and the council will be concluded there.’

               The most glorious officials said: ‘If it seems good, let us – taking six of the most devout Oriental bishops, three from the diocese of Asiana, three from Pontica, three from Illyricum, and three from Thrace, accompanied by the most holy Archbishop Anatolius and the most devout men from Rome – retire together into the oratory of the holy martyrium. When they have examined everything in order, their recommendations concerning the holy faith will be reported to you.’

               The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘The definition has satisfied everyone. [Report] our statements to the emperor. This is the definition of the orthodox.’

               When John the most devout bishop of Germanicia again went up to the most glorious officials, the most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘Drive out the Nestorians. Drive out the fighters against God. Who they are has with difficulty been exposed. The world is orthodox. Yesterday the definition satisfied everyone. The emperor is orthodox. The Augusta is orthodox. The Augusta expelled Nestorius.³⁷ The officials are orthodox. Many years to the Augusta! Many years to the emperor! Yesterday the definition satisfied everyone. Many years to the officials! We demand that the definition be signed on the gospels. It has satisfied everyone. Order the definition to be signed. Let there be no chicanery about the faith. Whoever will not sign the definition is a heretic. Holy Mary is Theotokos. Whoever does not hold this view is a heretic. You orthodox officials, protect the faith. Orthodox officials of orthodox emperors! No one disowns the definition. The Holy Spirit dictated the definition. The definition is orthodox. Let the definition be signed now. Whoever will not sign is a heretic. Drive out the heretics. The Virgin Mary is Theotokos. Drive out the heretic. “Mary the Theotokos” must be added to the definition. Drive out the Nestorians. Christ is God.’

              

The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Dioscorus said that the reason for Flavian’s deposition was that he said there are two natures,³⁸ but the definition has “from two natures”.’

               Anatolius the most devout archbishop of Constantinople said: ‘It was not because of the faith that Dioscorus was deposed. He was deposed because he broke off communion with the lord Archbishop Leo and was summoned a third time and did not come.’³⁹

               The most glorious officials said: ‘Do you accept the letter of Archbishop Leo?’

               The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘Yes, we have accepted and signed it.’

               The most glorious officials said: ‘Then its contents must be inserted in the definition.’

               The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘Another definition must not be produced. Nothing is lacking in the definition.’

               Eusebius the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘Another definition must not be produced.’

               The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘The definition has confirmed the letter.⁴⁰ Archbishop Leo believes as we believe. Let the definition be signed. The definition contains everything. The definition contains the faith. Leo spoke the words of Cyril, Celestine confirmed those of Cyril, Xystus confirmed those of Cyril.⁴¹ One baptism, one Lord, one faith! Exclude all chicanery from the definition.’

21. The most glorious officials said: ‘Your acclamations will be reported to our most divine and pious master.’

Veronicianus the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory went to the divine palace in accordance with the order of the most glorious officials. After a short time he returned and addressed the holy council as follows:

³⁰ 22 October.

³¹ Supplied from the Latin version.

³² The bracketed words, from the Latin version (and cf. Session on Photius and Eustathius 2), fill a lacuna in the Greek.

³³ When the minutes were edited, the decision was taken not to include the draft definition, since it could have provided ammunition for critics of the Definition in its final form. Chadwick 2001, 578 less probably takes this sentence to mean that a proposal not to include the draft in the Acts was actually put forward by Asclepiades and adopted by the bishops at this point in the proceedings.

³⁴ Supplied from the Latin.

³⁵ By ‘creed’ (σµλν) is meant the Definition itself (see 12 below). For the omission of the term Theotokos from the draft definition see above, pp. 185–6.

³⁶ The Greek version inserts: ‘Of these words in Latin the following is the Greek translation.’ The reference is to a Latin speech once included in the minutes of which the following paragraph is a translation.

³⁷ A reference to Pulcheria’s hostility to Nestorius and prime role in his downfall back in 431, after she had received massive bribes from Cyril of Alexandria. See Price 2004, 33–4.

³⁸ See I. 299.

³⁹ See our discussion of Session III (pp. 30–34 above) for an analysis of the charges against Dioscorus. The charge of heresy was neither pressed nor dropped. According to Facundus, Defence of the Three Chapters 5.3.31, Anatolius’ denial that Dioscorus was a heretic was used by Nestorians to argue that the council was not serious in its condemnation of Eutyches.

⁴⁰ The letter of Pope Leo to Flavian of Constantinople (the Tome), of which the full text was given at II. 22.

⁴¹ Pope Celestine (d. 432) confirmed the decrees of Ephesus I, while his successor Xystus worked for, and supported, the subsequent compromise between Cyril and the Antiochenes expressed in the Formula of Reunion. Rusticus ad loc. tells us that his contemporary Bishop Primasius of Hadrumetum, one of the few African opponents of the Three Chapters, altered ‘Xystus’ to ‘Christus’, ‘wishing through this falsification to exult the authority of the blessed Cyril against the letter of the confessor Ibas’.

Notification

22. Our most divine and pious master has issued the following commands. Either, in accordance with the decision of the most magnificent and glorious officials, six of the most devout bishops of the diocese of the Orient, three from Pontica, three from Asiana, three from Thrace, and three from Illyricum, in the company of the most holy Archbishop Anatolius and the most devout men from Rome, are to go into the oratory of the most holy martyrium and produce a correct and unimpeachable definition of the faith so as to please everyone and leave not a single doubt. Or, if you do not approve this, each one of you is to make his faith known through his metropolitan so as likewise to leave no doubt or disagreement. If your holinesses do not want even this, you are to know that the council will have to meet in the western parts, since your religiousness is unwilling to issue here an unambiguous definition of the true and orthodox faith.

               The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘Many years to the emperor! Let the definition be confirmed or we shall leave. Many years to the emperors!’

               Cecropius the most devout bishop of Sebastopolis said: ‘We propose that the definition be read out and that those who dissent and will not sign it should leave. For we are agreed with what had been well defined, and raise no objections.’

               The most devout bishops of Illyricum said: ‘Let those who dissent make themselves known. The dissenters are Nestorians. Let the dissenters go off to Rome.’⁴²

               The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Dioscorus said, “I accept ‘from two natures’, but I do not accept ‘two’.”⁴³ But the most holy Archbishop Leo says that there are two natures in Christ, united without confusion, change or separation in the one onlybegotten Son our Saviour.⁴⁴ So whom do you follow – the most holy Leo, or Dioscorus?’

               The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We believe as Leo does. Those who object are Eutychianists. Leo’s teaching was orthodox.’

               The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Then add to the definition in accordance with the decree of our most holy father Leo that there are two natures united without change, division or confusion in Christ.’

               At the request of all, the most glorious officials went into the oratory of the most holy martyr Euphemia together with Anatolius the most devout archbishop of Constantinople, and the most devout bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, the presbyter Boniface, and Julian the most devout bishop of the city of Cos, the representatives of the apostolic see of the great city of Rome, and also Maximus the most devout bishop of Antioch in Syria, Juvenal the most devout bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius the most devout bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius the most devout bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, Quintillus, Atticus and Sozon the most devout bishops from Illyricum, Diogenes the most devout bishop of Cyzicus, Leontius the most devout bishop of Magnesia, Florentius the most devout bishop of Sardis, Eusebius the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum, Theodore the most devout bishop of Tarsus, Cyrus the most devout bishop of Anazarbus, Constantine the most devout bishop of Bostra, Theodore the most devout bishop of Claudiopolis in Isauria, and Francion, Sebastian and Basil the most devout bishops from Thrace.

After they had discussed the holy faith and all of them had come out and taken their seats, the most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘May the holy council, in its upholding of the faith, deign to listen in silence to what has been defined in our presence by the holy fathers who have met together and expounded the definition of faith.’

Aetius archdeacon of the most holy church of Constantinople read:

The holy, great and ecumenical council, assembled by the grace of God and the decree of our most pious and Christloving emperors Valentinian and Marcian Augusti in the metropolis⁴⁵ of Chalcedon of the province of Bithynia and in the martyrium of the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia, has issued the following definition:

Christ our Lord and Saviour, confirming for his disciples the knowledge of the faith, said, ‘My peace I give you, my peace I leave to you’,⁴⁶ in order that no one should disagree with his neighbour over the doctrines of piety, but that the message of the truth should be proclaimed uniformly. But since the evil one does not desist from choking with his weeds the seeds of piety, and is always inventing something new against the truth, for this reason the Lord, taking thought as usual for the human race, has stirred up the zeal of this pious and most faithful emperor and summoned to himself the leaders of the priesthood everywhere, in order through the operation of the grace of Christ the Lord of us all to dispel every corruption of falsehood from the flock of Christ and fatten it on the shoots of the truth.

This then we have done, having by a unanimous decree repelled the doctrines of error, renewed the unerring faith of the fathers, proclaimed to all the creed of the 318, and endorsed as akin the fathers who received this compendium of piety, that is, the 150 who subsequently assembled at great Constantinople and set their seal on the same faith. Upholding also on our part the order and all the decrees on the faith of the holy council that formerly took place at Ephesus, of whom the leaders were the most holy in memory Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria, we decree the preeminence of the exposition of the correct and irreproachable faith by the 318 holy and blessed fathers who convened at Nicaea under the then emperor Constantine of pious memory, and also the validity of the definition of the 150 holy fathers at Constantinople for the uprooting of the heresies which had then sprung up and for the confirming of our same catholic and apostolic faith.

The symbol⁴⁷ of the 318 fathers at Nicaea⁴⁸

32. We believe in one God, Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ the onlybegotten Son of God, who was begotten from the Father before all ages, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down, was enfleshed and became man, suffered, rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. Those who say, ‘There was when he was not’, and ‘Before being begotten he was not’, and that he came into being from things that are not, or assert that the Son of God is from another hypostasis or substance or is changeable or alterable, these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.

The same of the 150 holy fathers who assembled at Constantinople⁴⁹

33. We believe in one God, Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten from the Father before all ages, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being, who for us men and for our salvation came down, was enfleshed from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin and became man, was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate and was buried, rose on the third day and ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and is coming again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there will not be an end; and in the Holy Spirit, the lord and life-giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified together, who spoke through the prophets; and in one catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. We await the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Amen.

34. This wise and saving symbol of divine grace sufficed for the perfect knowledge and confirmation of piety, for on the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit its teaching is complete, while to those who receive it faithfully it also sets forth the incarnation of the Lord. Nevertheless those who try to set at nought the preaching of the truth by heresies of their own have propagated nonsense, some daring to destroy the mystery of the dispensation of the Lord on our behalf and denying to the Virgin the name of Theotokos, and others introducing confusion and mixture, mindlessly inventing that there is one nature of flesh and Godhead, and through confusion [of the natures] fantasizing that the divine nature of the Onlybegotten is passible; for which reason this holy, great and ecumenical council now present, wishing to close off for them every device against the truth and expound the firmness of the proclamation from of old, has decreed first and foremost that the creed of the 318 holy fathers is to remain inviolate. Furthermore, it confirms the teaching on the essence of the Holy Spirit that was handed down at a later date by the 150 fathers who assembled in the imperial city because of those who were making war on the Holy Spirit; this teaching they made known to all, not as though they were inserting something omitted by their predecessors, but rather making clear by written testimony their conception of the Holy Spirit against those who were trying to deny his sovereignty. And because of those who attempt to destroy the mystery of the dispensation, shamelessly blathering that he who was born of the Holy Virgin Mary is a mere human being, the council has accepted as in keeping [with these creeds] the conciliar letters of the blessed Cyril, then shepherd of the church of Alexandria, to Nestorius and to those of the Orient, for the refutation of the madness of Nestorius and for the instruction of those who with pious zeal seek the meaning of the saving creed. To these letters it has attached appropriately, for the confirmation of the true doctrines, the letter written by the president of the great and senior Rome, the most blessed and holy Archbishop Leo, to Archbishop Flavian, [now] among the saints, for the confutation of the perversity of Eutyches, since it agrees with the confession of the great Peter and is a universal pillar against those with false beliefs. For the council sets itself against those who attempt to dissolve the mystery of the dispensation into a duality of sons, and it removes from the list of priests those who dare to say that the Godhead of the Onlybegotten is passible; it opposes those who imagine a mixing or confusion in the case of the two natures of Christ, it expels those who rave that the form of a servant which he took from us was heavenly or of some other substance, and it anathematizes those who invent two natures of the Lord before the union and imagine one nature after the union.

Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we all in harmony teach confession of one and the same Son our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood,⁵⁰ truly God and the same truly man, of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in respect of the Godhead, and the same consubstantial with us in respect of the manhood, like us in all things apart from sin,⁵¹ begotten from the Father before the ages in respect of the Godhead, and the same in the last days for us and for our salvation from the Virgin Mary the Theotokos in respect of the manhood, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Onlybegotten, acknowledged in two natures⁵² without confusion, change, division, or separation⁵³ (the difference of the natures being in no way destroyed by the union, but rather the distinctive character of each nature being preserved and coming together into one person and one hypostasis), not parted⁵⁴ or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, Onlybegotten, God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ, even as the prophets from of old and Jesus Christ himself taught us about him and the symbol of the fathers has handed down to us.

Now that these matters have been formulated by us with all possible care and precision, the holy and ecumenical council has decreed that no one is allowed to produce or compose or construct another creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who presume either to construct another creed or to publish or teach or deliver another symbol to those wishing to convert to the knowledge of the truth from paganism or Judaism or from any heresy whatsoever, the council decrees that, if they are bishops or clerics, they are to be deposed, bishops from the episcopate and clerics from the clerical state, while, if they are monks or laymen, they are to be anathematized.⁵⁵

               After the reading of the definition all the most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘This is the faith of the fathers. Let the metropolitans sign at once. Let them sign at once in the presence of the officials. Let this splendid definition suffer no delay. This is the faith of the apostles. To this we all assent. We all believe accordingly.’

               The most magnificent and glorious official said: ‘That which has been defined by the holy fathers and has pleased everyone will be made known to the divine head [i.e. the emperor].’

⁴² The Illyrian bishops were formally under the jurisdiction of Rome (exercised through the Bishop of Thessalonica as papal vicar), and supported Rome in its opposition to Canon 28 on the privileges of Constantinople, in that none of them signed it (XVI. 9). Yet at the same time many of them were miaphysites (see I. 27 with our note, and p. 4 above) and here slanderously imply that Rome was sympathetic to Nestorianism.

⁴³ See I. 332.

⁴⁴ These words do not occur in Leo’s Tome (II. 22), but were used by the delegates of Leo when explaining the Tome to the Illyrian delegates (IV. 9, after 98).

⁴⁵ Marcian conferred titular metropolitan status on Chalcedon at the following session, Nicomedia remaining the metropolis of the province (VI. 21). The title must have been inserted in the Definition subsequently.

⁴⁶ Jn 14: 27.

⁴⁷ σµλν (‘symbol’) is the technical term for a creed, π στις (‘faith’) the more usual one.

⁴⁸ We translate the text Schwartz provides, which has very limited support in the Greek MSS but is the text in the Latin version of the Acts. It contains several interesting departures from the original text of the Nicene Creed, as read out at the second session (II. 11) and as given in most of the Greek MSS of the Definition. The critical problems are discussed above on pp. 191–4, which defend Schwartz’s preference for the version given here.

⁴⁹ Here again we follow Schwartz’s reconstruction, based on the Latin version. It differs from the authentic form of the Creed of Constantinople, as read out at the second session (II. 14), in omitting the following phrases: ‘light from light’ (restored by Rusticus, but absent from the earlier editions of the Latin), ‘from heaven’, ‘suffered’, ‘in accordance with the scriptures’ and ‘holy’ (before ‘catholic and apostolic church’).

⁵⁰ ‘Perfect’ is the standard translation of τ λει ς, but in this context the word simply means ‘complete’.

⁵¹ The same formula, based on Heb. 4:15 (‘tempted in all things in likeness [to us] without sin’), was used by Basil of Seleucia at the Home Synod of 431 (I. 301) and in the petition of the Egyptian bishops (IV. 25).

⁵² The reading ‘from two natures’, which the Cyrillians would have preferred, appears in some Greek MSS, and was doubtless slipped into a sixthcentury edition of the text in an attempt to appease the miaphysites.

⁵³ These famous ‘Chalcedonian adverbs’ had first appeared in the council in a statement by the Roman delegates to assure the critics of the Tome of Leo that it did not separate the natures (IV. 9, after 98). This means that they were understood to stress the union of the natures and to qualify the force of ‘in two natures’. Here again the emphasis is on unity rather than duality in Christ.

⁵⁴ After the interruption of a long genitive absolute clause (which we place in brackets) it is ‘one and the same Christ’ that is the subject of this clause as well.

⁵⁵ This final paragraph re-enacts Canon 7 of Ephesus I (I.943), forbidding the use of any creed apart from that of Nicaea; a modification is that the Creed of Constantinople was now recognized as an approved variant of the original Nicene text. The reference to monks is an addition, reflecting the opposition to the council from many monks in Constantinople (see IV. 83, 88, and our comment at p. 165 above).