Ver. 20.--Waterland omits tres before Dominos. Usher reads for prohibemur: ' Non comprobamus, sed omnino prohibemus. '
Ver. 21.--Usher: sed ingenitus for nec genitus.
Ver. 23.--The Greek translation and the Latin text in Usher omit et Filio , which is contrary to the Greek doctrine of the single procession. Most Greek copies read only apo tou patros .
Ver. 25.--Usher: nullus primus aut postremus, nullus major aut minor , oudeis protos e eschatos, oudeis megas e mikros .
Ver. 29.-- Fideliter is variously rendered in the Greek copies by orthos , pistos , bebaios .
Ver. 30.--Utrecht Psalter reads quia for quod , and omits pariter.
Ver. 31.--Usher's Greek text inserts here a long interpolation, which is not at all in keeping with the sententious character of the symbol.
Ver. 32.--Another long interpolation in Usher.
Ver. 38.--After passus est a Greek version adds the anti-patripassian clause: apathous tes theotetos menouses , impassibili manente divinitate.
Ver. 38.--Some MSS. read ad infernos or ad inferna. Usher's enlarged Greek copy omits the clause, and reads tapheis kai anastas . The Utrecht Psalter reads et qui for qui vero.
Ver. 43.--Usher: eis aionious kolaseis , ad cruciatus eternos.
Ver. 44.--The Greek copies read either pistos alone, or pistos te kai bebaios , or ek pisteos bebaios pisteuse .
[78] Swedenborg was willing to adopt the Athanasian Creed if a trinity of (the one Divine) person was substituted for a trinity of persons. According to him, the Father is the Essential Divinity, the Son the Divine Humanity, the Holy Spirit the Divine Proceeding or Operation.
V. SYMBOLUM CONSTANTINOPOLITANUM TERTIUM, ADVERSUS MONOTHELETAS, A.D. 680.
The Creed of the Sixth OEcumenical Council, against the Monothelites.
Review of the Dogmatic Legislation of the Seven OEcumenical Councils.
The Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Creed of Chalcedon, both of which we have given in full, embrace the sum and substance of the dogmatic legislation of the oecumenical Councils of the undivided ancient or Græco-Latin Church. All the rest is merely explanatory and supplementary, or disputed.
The Sixth OEcumenical (or Third Constantinopolitan) Council (also called Conc. Trullanum I.), held A.D. 680, in consequence of the Monothelite or One-Will Controversy (683-680), enlarged the Creed of Chalcedon, notwithstanding the solemn prohibition of the Council of Chalcedon (see p. 16), by adding a horos , or dogmatic definition to the effect that Jesus Christ had two distinct and inseparable wills ( thelemata ), as well as two natures, a human will and a divine will, working in harmony, the human in subordination to the divine; the will being regarded as an attribute of nature rather than person. See Actio XVIII. in Mansi, Conc., Tom.XI. pp.637 sqq. After quoting the Symbol of Chalcedon down to the words paradedoke sumbolon (see p. 15), the Synod goes on, without interruption, as follows:
Kai duo phusikas theleseis etoi thelemata en auto [Ies. Christo] kai duo phusikas energeias adiairetos, atreptos, ameristos, asunchutos, kata ten ton hagion pateron didaskalian hosautos keruttomen; kai duo men phusika thelemata ouch' hupenantia, me genoito, kathos hoi asebeis ephesan hairetikoi, all' hepomenon to anthropinon autou thelema, kai me antipipton e antipailaion, mallon men oun kai hupotassomenon to theio autou kai pansthenei thelemati; edei gar to tes sarkos thelema kinethenai, hupotagenai de to thelemati to theiko kata ton pansophon Athanasion. Et duas naturales voluntates in eo [Jesu Christo], et duas naturales operationes indivise, inconvertibiliter, inseparabiliter, inconfuse secundum sanctorum patrum doctrinam adæque prædicamus; et duas naturales voluntates non contrarias, absit, juxta quod impii asseruerunt hæretici, sed sequentem ejus humanam voluntatem, et non resistentem vel reluctantem, sed potius et subjectam divinæ ejus atque omnipotenti voluntati. Oportebat enim carnis voluntatem moveri, subjici vero voluntati divinæ, juxta sapientissimum Athanasium.
Then follow quotations from John vi. 38, Gregory Nazianzen, Pope Leo (Ep. ad Flavianum, c. 4), Cyril of Alexandria, and a repetition of the Ephesian and Chalcedonian prohibition to set forth any new symbol of faith on pain of excommunication. Pope Agatho, by a dogmatic epistle, exercised a controlling influence over this Council similar to the one of Pope Leo I. over the Council of Chalcedon. On the other hand, the Council emphatically condemned Pope Honorius as a Monothelite heretic. Monothelitism continued among the Maronites on Mount Lebanon.
The Third OEcumenical Council, held at Ephesus, A.D. 431, and the Fifth OEcumenical Council, held at Constantinople, A.D. 553 (hence also called the Second Constantinopolitan C.), issued no new Creed, but simply reaffirmed the previous Creeds and condemned certain heresies.
The Council of Ephesus condemned 'the impious and profane doctrines' of Nestorius in two of its six canons (can. 1 and 4), and indorsed the twelve anathemas of Cyril of Alexandria hurled against Nestorius, which are purely negative, and need not be inserted here. [79] The same Synod sanctioned also the letters of Cyril and of Coelestinus of Rome to Nestorius, and incidentally (in can. 1 and 4) condemned Pelagianism in the person of Coelestius, the chief pupil of Pelagius, on the supposition that he sympathized with Nestorius; but the Pelagian doctrines are not stated.
The Fifth OEcumenical Council, of 164 Bishops, occasioned by the protracted and tedious Monophysite controversies (which grew out of the Council of Chalcedon), confessed the Nicene Creed as explained and enlarged by the Councils of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, indorsed the dogmatic edicts of Emperor Justinian, and condemned the three Chapters ( tria kephaleia ), that is, some writings of three departed divines of the Antiochian school, Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), Theodoret of Cyros, and Ibas of Edessa (friends of Nestorius). The last two, however, had been declared orthodox by the Council of Chalcedon. The Fifth OEcumenical Council had a leaning towards Monophysitism, but the Sixth OEcumenical Council reacted again in favor of the dyophysitism of the Council of Chalcedon, and supplemented it by teaching the dyotheletism of Christ. [80]
The Seventh (and last strictly) OEcumenical Council, held, under the Empress Irene, at Nicæa, A.D. 787, and hence also called the Second Nicene Council, condemned the Iconoclasts, and sanctioned the ecclesiastical use and limited worship of sacred images. [81] But this decision is recognized only by Greeks and Romans, while Protestants regard it as a relapse into a refined form of idolatry, condemned by the Second Commandment and the primitive Christian Church. It became a fruitful source of superstition, but stimulated also the development of Christian art.
[79] See the Anathematismi Cyrilli in Mansi, Conc. Tom. IV. p. 1082 and Tom. V. pp. 85 sqq. (Greek and Latin, with the anatrope of Theodoret, and the apologia of Cyril), also in Denzinger's Enchiridion, pp. 27-31, and Gieseler's Church History, Vol. I. pp. 349 sqq. (Am. ed., only the Greek text). The ambitious, violent, and overbearing Cyril, who controlled the Synod, misrepresented his rival Patriarch of Constantinople, and leaned towards the opposite heresy of Eutychianism. Compare the refutation of Theodoret in Mansi, Tom. V. pp. 87 sqq., and my Church History, Vol. III. pp. 722-729. The OEcumenical Council of 431 was saved by its orthodoxy, otherwise it would have shared the disgrace of the infamous Robber Synod ( sunodos lestrike , latrocinium Ephesinum ), held at Ephesus a few years later (449) under the lead of Dioscurus (Cyril's successor), where passion, intrigue, and uncharitableness ruled supreme. Gregory of Nazianzum, who himself presided over the Second OEcumenical Council, drew a sad picture of the unchristian spirit which disgraced the synodical assemblies of his day. But the Third OEcumenical Council stands morally as well as doctrinally far below its two predecessors.
[80] The Greek Acts of the Fifth Council, with the exception of the fourteen anathemas on the three Chapters, are lost; but a Latin translation, concerning whose genuineness and completeness there has been much controversy, is preserved. See Mansi, Conc. Tom. IX. pp. 163 sqq., especially pp. 538-582. Denzinger gives the Canones XIV. de tribus capitulis (Enchir. pp. 58-73), and also the fifteen Canons against the errors of Origen (pp. 73-80), but the latter belong to an earlier Constantinopolitan Synod, held A.D. 544. On the Three Chapter Controversy, see my Church History, Vol. III. pp. 768 sqq., and more fully, Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vol. II. pp. 775-899.
[81] The aspasmos kai timetike proskunesis , osculum et honoraria adoratio , but not alethine latreia he prepei mone te theia phusei , vera latria, quæ solam divinam naturam decet. See the decree in Mansi, Conc. Tom. XIII. p. 378 sq. Also in Denzinger, Enchir. pp. 104, 105.