[75] En duo phusesin , 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, ek duo phuseon , 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 ek duo phuseon . But for this very reason the Orientals, and also the Roman delegates, protested with one voice against ek , and insisted upon another formula with en , 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 ek is the accurate and original expression, and is a concession to Monophysitism; that it also agrees better (?) with the verb gnorizein (to recognize by certain tokens); but that it was from the very beginning changed by the Occidentals into en . But, with Gieseler, Neander (iv. 988), Hefele (Conciliengesch. II. 451 sq.), Beck (Dogmengeschichte, p. 251), and Hahn (l.c. p. 118, note 6), we prefer the view that en duo phusesin 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 ek duo phusesin 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 en duo phusesin adiairetois gnorizesthai ton christon (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' (l.c. II. 129). From my Church History, Vol. III. p. 745 sq.
[76] asunchutos , inconfuse , and atreptos , immutabiliter (without confusion, without conversion or change), are directed against Eutychianism, which mixes and confounds the human and the divine natures in Christ ( sunchusis ), 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 ( mia phusis sunthetos ), 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 ( theotokos 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 phthartos and latres , and Aphthartodocetæ).
[77] adiairetos , indivise , achoristos , 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 ( sunapheia ), a moral union or intimate friendship between the Divine Logos and the man Jesus. Hence, also, the opposition to the term theotokos , 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.